Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Water Supplies (Survey),

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to regional water schemes in the country districts of Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): An engineering survey of Scots water supplies is presently proceeding and consideration is being given to the best measures for improving rural water supplies, including especially joint arrangements between local authorities designed to make the most economic and efficient use of the available resources.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is very difficult for local authorities, county councils in particular, to plan ahead unless they have clear guidance from the Government in this matter?

Mr. Johnston: In this particular instance they are planning ahead and very effectively.

Advisory Council

Major Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the functions and powers of the Council of State for Scotland which he has constituted.

Mr. Johnston: I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend copies of my previous statements on the functions of the Advisory Council of ex-Secretaries at the Scottish Office. This council, which consists of members of all the major political parties in Scotland collaborates with me for the purpose of surveying the problems likely to arise in Scotland after the war and selecting suitable personnel to conduct such inquiries as are considered desirable.

Sir R. W. Smith: Is this body at all representative of Scotland? There are three Liberals, one Socialist and only two Conservatives on it, although the Conservative party holds the largest number of seats in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: Every available ex-Secretary of State for Scotland is invited to become a member.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there is no Communist on this Council?

Mr. Boothby: What particular merit is there in an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland?

Housing

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the resolution of the Fife Small Burghs Association, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, regarding early approval of the housing schemes of small burghs and the need for a statement by the Government on its policy in regard to housing; and if he has any statement to make.

Mr. Johnston: The Association wrote to me with a copy of the resolution referred to, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my detailed reply.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that this question of housing is connected with the problems of juvenile delinquency, tuberculosis and infantile mortality? Will he see that the Government make as early as possible a statement on housing that will satisfy the local authorities and the people of Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: I do not know that I can promise to make a statement at an early date that will satisfy everybody but I can assure the hon. Member that we are doing our best.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to which office of the Ministry of Works Scottish local authorities must send their type plans for houses to be approved; and if estimated costs should accompany such plans.

Mr. Johnston: The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the approval of the type and layout plans of houses built by Scottish local authorities, and


the authorities should continue to submit their plans and other particulars to the Department of Health for Scotland in the usual way. Perhaps I should add in order to remove any possible misunderstanding that I welcome the advice and co-operation which the Minister of Works is affording us on technical matters.

Mr. McKinlay: Do the pronouncements of the Minister of Reconstruction and the Minister of Works apply to Scotland or not?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot say to what statements my hon. Friend refers, but the answer I have given to-day is the official answer.

Mr. McKinlay: Has the Minister of Works any power to veto plans on the grounds of type or cost. Will the consultations which take place give that Ministry any power to turn down plans submitted to the Scottish Office?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland at whose instigation a meeting was held at St. Andrew's House on 12th January, at which representatives of the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Works met officials of certain local authorities; and will he state the nature of the subject discussed.

Mr. Johnston: A few technical officers of local authorities were invited by the Department of Health for Scotland to discuss the purely technical aspect of certain proposals which I have under consideration for the servicing of housing sites during the war. I will consult the local authority associations immediately I am in a position to place definite proposals before them.

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no question of technicality was discussed but that it was purely a matter of policy? Is he also aware that this policy involves bringing large English contracting firms to Scotland to work on roads and sewers to the exclusion of Scottish contractors? Are there not sufficient contractors in Scotland to do this work?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir. I have a complete transcript of what happened and my information is not in accordance with that suggestion.

Mr. McKinlay: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, with a view to encouraging occupiers to purchase their houses and having regard to the general advance in the price level of houses since 1935, he will consider increasing the maximum market value of houses for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition (Scotland) Acts.

Mr. Johnston: I am asking the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to consider and advise on the measures required to encourage the provision of houses for owner occupation. The Committee's inquiries will cover the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Infant Mortality (Dumbarton)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give an explanation of the fact disclosed in the Annual Report of the Registrar of Dumbarton, for 1943, that the infant mortality rate in the Burgh rose to 87.3 per 1,000 births, a rise of 14.5 as against the previous year.

Mr. Johnston: The figures for 1943 quoted by the hon. Member have not yet been adjusted by the Registrar General to include births and deaths of Dumbarton children which took place outside the Burgh boundaries, but I will see to it that the figures whenever available are supplied to the hon. Member. The adjusted rates for the three previous years 1940–41–42, of 83, 120, and 65 infant deaths per 1,000 live births respectively, represented in actual numbers of infant deaths 36, 53 and 31. The hon. Member will, of course, readily appreciate that percentage fluctuations may vary widely where the annual numbers of births and infant deaths are comparatively small.

Barlinnie Prison (Boys)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many boys under 16 and from 16 to 21 years of age, respectively, have been imprisoned in Barlinnie Prison on remand during the last 12 months for which statistics are available; how many of the same age


groups have been at this prison awaiting transfer to Polmont Borstal Institution; what were the maximum average and minimum periods, respectively, spent in prison awaiting such transfer; whether it is still the practice of some of these lads to be kept in their cells for the whole of the 24 hours except for the two breaks for exercise; and whether he will, at the earliest possible moment, provide alternative accommodation for these lads and in the meantime arrange that no boy or young man sentenced to Borstal is kept in solitary confinement in prison.

Mr. Johnston: As the answer is lengthy and contains a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lindsay: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that these young people are sent to Barlinnie Prison, untried, and that they spend two or three months there and mix with adults, many of whom are of a most undesirable kind?

Mr. Johnston: I would prefer that my hon. Friend first studied the long and rather elaborate statement I propose to give in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will not my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of visiting Barlinnie Prison? I was there last Sunday and the Sunday before. It is very necessary that the Secretary of State should visit the prison because, owing to the war, it is now not only a civil prison, but a military prison.

Mr. Johnston: I will be glad if my hon. Friend will give me any information at his disposal, after which I will consider adopting his suggestion.

Following is the answer:

The number of lads under 16 detained in Barlinnie Prison on remand by order of a court in 1943 was 58. The number between 16 and 21 was 957. During the same year 212 youths between 16 and 21 were detained there pending transfer to Polmont Borstal Institution, the minimum, average and maximum periods of detention having been one day, 32 days and 75 days respectively. Boys awaiting transfer to Borstal must, under the relative statutory rules, be segregated from ordinary prisoners. Owing to the serious

shortage of accommodation and staff under war conditions, it is not at present possible to provide opportunities for Borstal cases to work or have recreation in association at Barlinnie, but apart from the normal periods of outdoor exercise they are provided with light work and books. Remand cases receive the same treatment as other untried prisoners. A new Borstal Institution would have been built but for the war, and the difficulties of accommodation have been increased by war conditions. Borstal cases are transferred to Polmont as soon as possible and the waiting period in recent months has been reduced. The possibility of temporary arrangements to relieve pressure at Polmont is being actively reviewed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Group Production Directors (Salaries)

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what salaries it is proposed to pay to the group production directors under the new scheme for grouping collieries; what salaries are permissible under existing Civil Service scales; whether it will be permissible for these directors to continue to receive payment from their private employers to supplement their Civil Service payment; and what will be the relationship between the payment of these production directors and the colliery inspectors.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): It is intended that group production directors to be appointed should receive the equivalent of their present remuneration from the Coal Charges Account so that they will be neither better off nor worse off than they were when directly employed by the industry: the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise. These officers will not receive any payment in cash from their former industrial employers so long as they are employed in the service of this Ministry, but may continue to receive certain perquisites, particularly housing accommodation, which were attached to their previous employment. There is no relationship between the payment to the proposed group production directors and to the Mines Inspectorate—the former will be temporary non-pensionable State servants whereas the Mines Inspectors are salaried civil servants and pensionable subject to the usual conditions.

Machinery

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the American mining machinery now being introduced into British mines complies in all respects with the requirements of Section 55 of the Coal Mines Act.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, so far as the present limited experience of these machines has shown.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand that any electrical machinery coming from America for use at the coalface is subjected to the same tests and gets the same certificates as English made machinery of the same type?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, I think that is so.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Can the Minister say whether this machinery will be generally accepted and that every effort will be made to improve production?

Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that everything possible is being done to extend mechanisation.

Conveyor Belting (Quality)

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the loss of coal output caused by the inferior quality of the conveyor belting now being supplied to collieries; and what steps he is taking to remedy the position.

Major Lloyd George: The quality of conveyor belting now in use is necessarily somewhat below the highest pre-war standard and the problem of improving the specification, within the limitations of the supply of crude rubber, is being investigated. Generally speaking, however, I am not aware that defects in the present war-time belting have caused any appreciable increase in loss of coal output.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister make inquiries of members of both sides of the industry? If he does I think he will be assured that there is a great loss of production.

Major Lloyd George: I am well aware from my own experience that there is general complaint with regard to belting at the present time. We are making every

effort to increase production and we have increased it by 30 per cent. during the last quarter.

Exports

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what were the exports of coal in the month of December; and to what destinations.

Major Lloyd George: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to give this information, but I can assure him that we are not exporting any more coal than is necessary for the prosecution of the war.

Sir A. Knox: Is it necessary to export any coal to neutral nations, in view of the difficulty of getting sufficient coal for consumers in this country?

Major Lloyd George: It depends for what purpose. We get a lot of benefit in other commodities from neutral nations, and it may be necessary to see that they do not suffer.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not important to know to what extent we are exporting coal to certain countries, like Spain and Portugal, which are in fact assisting the enemy with material which would be of great value to us?

Major Lloyd George: Obviously, in the national interest I would not give details.

German Prisoners of War

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if German prisoners of war are put to work in the British coalmines.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that British prisoners of war are working in German mines, and why is it that German prisoners cannot work in British mines?

Major Lloyd George: One reason is that the type of German prisoner here is rather a technical type, not very conversant with mining, and there are other reasons, particularly to do with the safety of the mines, which must be very seriously considered.

Mr. Higgs: Are our prisoners more conversant with the mines in Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the approximate percentage of the area of Great Britain which has no public supply of electricity from the grid.

Major Lloyd George: The only district in Great Britain in which the Central Electricity Board, the owner of the grid, does not operate is the North of Scotland, which is covered by the provisions of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943. The area of this district is about 23 per cent. of Great Britain and its population about 1½ per cent. Inside the grid area, however, there are numerous small rural districts which do not receive a public supply. I am unable to say exactly what percentage of the total population is at present within the area of public supply of electricity, but I am advised that it is certainly in excess of 90 per cent.

Mr. Higgs: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intend to take any action to give a supply to these outlying districts at a reasonable price?

Major Lloyd George: That is one of the things I am engaged upon now.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the firm of the ex-chairman of the Electricity Board supplied from the grid?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL ALLOWANCE (APPLICA TION, FORDHAM)

Mr. Oswald Lewis: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will reconsider his decision to refuse any allowance for petrol to Mr. W. H. Hammond, of Fordham, to run a motor-car for hire although he has been granted a licence by the Essex County Council, as the inability to obtain the petrol is depriving him of a means of livelihood after three years' active service in the Royal Navy, from which he has been discharged for medical reasons.

Major Lloyd George: From the national standpoint there are objections to the creation of additional hire-car allowances, and I am advised that Fordham is adequately served by the hire cars available in the neighbourhood. The fact that an applicant has been granted a hackney licence is no evidence of public need for a hire-car, since such a licence is obtainable

on payment of the appropriate fee. I am ready to consider sympathetically any case in which the grant of a petrol allowance would afford the best chance of satisfactory resettlement for a disabled man, and I have arranged with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service a procedure for consultation in such cases. In the present instance, I understand that suitable work in his own trade of electrical wireman is available for Mr. Hammond within a mile and a half of his home and in these circumstances I do not at present feel able to reverse the decisions on the application for a hire-car allowance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (INTEREST-FREE LOANS)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any further loans, free of interest, have been received in this country from Newfoundland in recent months; and whether he can state the total amount received in this way from this source during the period of the war.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): A further interest-free loan of 2½ million dollars was received from the Newfoundland Government last months. In all a total sum of 10,300,000 dollars has now been generously contributed in this way from Newfoundland for the furtherance of the war effort. The loans are returnable at short notice and they should provide a useful reserve for post-war reconstruction in Newfoundland.

Mr. Maxton: Are they loans from the people of Newfoundland or from the Commission of Government?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: They are from the people, collected by the Commission of Government.

Mr. Maxton: Are they interest-free loans as between the people of Newfoundland and the Commission of Government or as between the Commission of Government and the Government of Great Britain?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I do not think that the Commission of Government can be separated from the people of Newfoundland.

Mr. Maxton: Is the money raised by the Commission of Government from the people, as individuals, or is it saved out of the revenue and transferred here?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: It comes from the taxpayers but I should have notice of the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Commission of Government handing it over without consulting the people of Newfoundland?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

War Factories (Disposal)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he has been in consultation with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning in connection with his talks with industrialists about the disposal of war factories, etc.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister to his Question on this subject on Thursday last. I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning keep in close touch on these matters.

Sir P. Hurd: Is it a fact that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be brought in before any decisions are come to?

Mr. Dalton: The two Departments are in close touch, but we do not want too much delay. I think the Minister would agree with me that the present arrangements are quite satisfactory without too many rigid rules.

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce (Memorandum)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered a copy of the memorandum prepared by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce which was adopted by that council at its meeting on Monday, 10th January; and with what result.

Mr. Dalton: I have read this memorandum with great interest, but I regret that I cannot at present add to the reply which I gave on 11th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones).

Sir P. Hannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will be in a position to add anything to his previous statement? What preparations are being made by the Board of Trade to deal with the difficulties of manufacturers?

Mr. Dalton: The memorandum states in the final paragraph but one:
in the circumstances it would seem that no useful purpose would be served by importuning the President of the Board of Trade at this juncture.

Sir P. Hannon: Does not that reveal the ineptitude of the Board of Trade in dealing with export policy?

British Exports, Egypt

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of exports of British goods to Egypt during the past year; what commodities constitute the principal items; and whether the possibilities of the Egyptian market after the war are being kept in mind by his Department.

Mr. Dalton: As I have already stated in reply to previous Questions, publication of details of our trade in particular commodities or with particular countries has been suspended since the outbreak of war. The answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Major Petherick: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that he consults the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, who may be able to give him valuable advice?

Mr. Dalton: Our rooms are in the same corridor and we often meet.

Clothing Coupons

Mr. Boothby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make arrangements to issue the necessary coupons for seaboots to bona fide fishermen.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have made arrangements whereby inshore fishermen will shortly be able to get their seaboots coupon-free.

Mr. Boothby: What arrangements are made for deep sea fishermen?

Mr. Dalton: They will be treated on the same footing as the men of the Merchant Navy, to whom we have tried to be as generous as possible.

Captain Crowder: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the arrangements, as regards coupons, whereby the members of the W.V.S. can obtain replacement of uniform.

Mr. Dalton: Out of the total W.V.S. membership only about 2 per cent. wear uniform, and most of these surrender the full number of coupons for any replacements they need. Of this 2 per cent., about a quarter, for whose duties uniform is regarded as essential, may, if they wish, obtain limited replacements, coupon-free, in return for the annual surrender of a small number of coupons.

Captain Crowder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the second scheme they have to surrender 12 coupons every year whether they wish to replace any uniform in that year or not? Is not that rather unfair, and will the right hon. Gentleman look into the position again?

Mr. Dalton: We have looked into it recently and I am glad to be able to say the contribution has been reduced from 12 coupons to eight. I hope that this will go some way towards meeting the grievance.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the damaging effects on underclothes and socks caused directly or indirectly by the use of artificial legs, he will consider granting a few extra coupons to those who are sufferers in this respect.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am always glad to consider sympathetically applications in such cases.

Withdrawing Retail Traders (Register)

Mr. Doland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to bring the register of withdrawing retail traders to the notice of persons concerned, particularly those serving in His Majesty's forces at home and overseas.

Mr. Dalton: The Register of Withdrawing Retail Traders has been given wide publicity both in the Press and on the Air. Stocks of application forms for admission to the Register have been supplied to Chambers of Trade and Commerce and Citizens Advice Bureaux. The Service Departments and the Ministry of War Transport have taken special steps, at my request, to bring the Register to the notice

of men serving in His Majesty's Forces at home and abroad and in the Merchant Navy, and also of British Prisoners of War. In addition, I have just arranged for the Register to be given publicity in periodicals circulating among the Forces in the Middle East. I am most anxious that the Register shall be made known to all concerned, and I shall be very grateful for any help that hon. Members can give.

Cotton Spinning Industry Act

Mr. Brooks: asked the President of the Board of Trade, the number of cotton spindles destroyed under the Cotton Spinning Industry Act of 1936 and the total cost to the British taxpayer.

Mr. Dalton: The Spindles Board set up under this Act, acquired and disposed of some 6,100,000 spindles. The money for this purpose—amounting to some £876,000—was raised by a levy on spindles installed in cotton spinning mills and was not a charge on the taxpayer.

Mr. Hammersley: Has my right hon. Friend got it in mind that the difficulties which this Act were designed to remedy, will recur unless a more favourable attitude towards licences is taken by his Department?

Mr. Dalton: We have this very much in mind, and, as reported in the Press this morning, a report has been submitted to me by the chairman of the Cotton Board.

Factory Workers' Clothing (Steel Lockers)

Mr. Higgs: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the sale of steel lockers for workers' clothes is now prohibited; and can he see his way to relax this restriction so that they can be purchased by industrial firms in order to protect the clothing of factory workers while it is not in use.

Mr. Dalton: In order to save labour and steel the manufacture of these goods has not been permitted since February, 1943. Existing stocks axe supplied to those factories, where, owing to the conditions of work, steel lockers are most necessary.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that these lockers are supplied without restriction to the Ministries, and does he not consider that it is just as necessary to protect the clothes of workers in private industry as the clothes of those who work in the Ministries?

Mr. Dalton: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "supplying free" to the Ministries.

Mr. Higgs: I said "without restriction."

Mr. Dalton: I do not know what is meant by that. What happens is that the factory inspectors advise us where these limited stocks should be sent in the interests of the workers.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that "without restriction" means supplying without permit?

Mr. Dalton: It is not a question of permits at all.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sheet iron is as good as steel?

Men's Suits (Restrictions and Coupon Pointing)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the changes recently made in the U.S.A., Canada and Australia with regard to men's suits, he will consider relaxing any of the restrictions on suits in this country.

Mr. Dalton: These restrictions, since they were introduced in March, 1942, have resulted in a considerable saving of cloth and labour. But a new situation has been created by the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, after consultation with other Departments concerned including my own and as part of his plans for clothing soldiers on demobilisation, to issue suits which are free from these restrictions. Orders will, I understand, shortly be placed, and I am advised that it would not be practicable in these conditions to maintain the restrictions on the manufacture of suits for the general public. I have, therefore, decided that men's suits may again be made without any restriction on styles as from the 1st February, but may not be supplied to the public until the 1st March. I have also decided that the coupon pointing of the "non-austerity" suit shall be 26, while the "austerity" suit, as from 1st February, will be down-pointed from 26 to 20 coupons, the pointing for coat, waistcoat and trousers each being reduced by two coupons.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will now be able to buy a new suit for the first time during the war and that we are very grateful to him?

Mr. Gallacher: Why has the Minister waited until I have bought a suit without pockets, before bringing in this change?

Mr. Dalton: The retailers will be very grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to clear the stocks.

Mr. Thorne: Will my hon. Friend and myself be able to get pockets inside our waistcoats?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE

Germany (Mineral Imports)

Mr. George Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare when the agreements were made between this country and the Portuguese Government which permit the present Portuguese exports of wolfram to Germany; and what is their duration.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I cannot accept the implication contained in this Question that we have been parties to any agreement which permitted the export of wolfram to Germany. The last agreement between H.M. Government and the Portuguese Government governing British purchases of wolfram was arrived at in September, 1943. The present allocation of wolfram will remain in force until fresh arrangements are made.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House was told by the Foreign Secretary that the present exports of wolfram from Portugal to this country and Germany was arrived at by agreement between this country and the Portuguese Government; and is it not rather surprising that such an agreement could have been made as late as September last year?

Mr. Foot: No, Sir. My hon. Friend clearly misunderstood what the Foreign Secretary said. The only agreement that could or would be arrived at between His Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government is an agreement governing our own purchases of wolfram.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: What steps have been taken to develop the wolfram deposits in this country?

Mr. Molson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare if he has any information as to how much tungsten is being exported from Spain to Germany; and what steps he is taking to induce the Spanish Government to discontinue this trade.

Mr. Foot: My Department estimates that exports of wolfram from Spain to Germany during the past year have averaged approximately 100 tons a month. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 18th January we have ourselves made considerable purchases, but it would not be in the public interest to announce what other steps His Majesty's Government are taking, or contemplate taking in the future.

Mr. Molson: Has the Ministry of Economic Warfare considered the desirability of restricting the navicerts for the importation of oil into Spain unless a reduction takes place in the exports from Spain to Germany of valuable minerals?

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend has told us that it is not in the public interest to furnish the House with details of what the Government are doing in this matter. Can we be assured that the Government are doing something?

Mr. Foot: Yes, Sir.

Sweden and Germany

Sir. A. Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare to what extent supplies of all sorts are going from Sweden to Germany; and whether the transport of German troops through Sweden has now ceased.

Mr. Foot: Since the beginning of the war, Sweden has exported to Germany substantial quantities of iron ore, wood and wood pulp, paper, machinery, ball and roller bearings, ships, fishing vessels and skis. During the second half of 1943, there was a marked falling-off in certain exports, notably machinery, and Swedish exports to Germany in 1944 are expected to be considerably lower in almost every item, In particular, the new German-Swedish Trade Agreement recently signed

in Stockholm provides for large reductions, both in Swedish deliveries to Germany and also in corresponding German deliveries to Sweden. As regards the second part of the Question, the carriage of German war materials and troops through Sweden was brought to an end on 15th August and 20th August, 1943, respectively, and of German oil on 1st October, 1943.

Sir A. Southby: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that no transport of troops is now going on; and will he bear continually in mind the attitude adopted by Sweden to Germany during the last war and this war?

Mr. Foot: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, whatever may have happened in the last war or at an early stage in this war, the House will agree that this reduction in Swedish exports to Germany is, from our point of view, very satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister without Portfolio if he is aware that local authorities are unable to make arrangements for improved social amenities such as water supply, drainage, improved lighting and housing, until His Majesty's Government have announced their policy on rural development; and when such a statement of policy is likely to be made.

The Minister without Porfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I am informed that rural authorities are making substantial progress in the preparation of their postwar plans in connection with the matters to which my hon. Friend refers. In reply to the last part of the Question I would refer him to the statement made on 30th November, 1943, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning in answer to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) of which I am sending him a copy and to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on some of even the most minor questions the position of local authorities has become extremely serious because they do not know what is in the Government's mind


for the future; and will he consult with the Minister of Health on the urgency of some of these questions?

Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly, Sir, but it is satisfactory to know that the plans of the rural authorities are going on very well.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD WORK (ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War under what conditions as to pay, housing, status and discipline it is proposed to employ Italians for work on the roads in this country.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The conditions for Italian prisoners of war working on the roads are the same as for those doing other work, say, on the land. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. 1. Thomas) on 28th January, I hope shortly to make a statement about the employment of Italian prisoners.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Will my right hon. Friend be more explicit as to the status of these Italians? Are they to be prisoners or free men?

Sir J. Grigg: That is a point with which I shall deal in the statement I shall make, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will await that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

War Office Civilian Staffs (Palestine)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that repeated application for the institution of Whitley and other negotiating machinery for civilian staffs employed by the War Department in Palestine have so far produced no definite reply from Headquarters, Middle East; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a speedy conclusion is reached.

Sir J. Grigg: The question of setting up negotiating machinery for civilian staffs employed by the War Department in Palestine is now being considered, and it is hoped that a conclusion will be reached in the near future. Meanwhile the military authorities in Palestine have been instructed that the Palestine branch of the

Civil Service Clerical Association should be recognised as entitled to make representations on behalf of the clerical grades employed by the War Department.

Military Detention Barracks (Staff Hours)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will arrange to allow personnel employed in military detention barracks to have regular leave at alternate week-ends, as in civil prisons;
(2) whether he is aware of the long hours worked by personnel in military detention barracks; and whether he will take steps to conform the hours of duty to those of personnel serving in civil prisons.

Sir J. Grigg: The rules for military detention barracks and military prisons lay down that the personnel on the staff in military detention barracks shall work 7½ hours a day. They are usually given leave on short pass, either every third week, from the time they finish their duty on Friday until 6.30 a.m. on Monday, or every fortnight, from about one o'clock on Saturday afternoon to 6.30 a.m. on Monday. Every three months they have a week's leave. It is difficult to make an exact comparison in these matters between soldiers and civilians, but I hope the hon. Member will agree that the conditions I have outlined above compare favourably with conditions in civil prisons.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that, although these Regulations sound all right, they are more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and will he receive representations on the matter?

Sir J. Grigg: Certainly, Sir, but I should be very surprised to find that the sweeping statement in the hon. Member's supplementary is true. I shall be prepared to receive any representations on the subject.

Mr. Frank Owen (Commission)

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Secretary of State for War when Brigadier Frank Owen joined the Army; whether he joined as a volunteer or was called up with his age group; and when he was commissioned.

Sir J. Grigg: This officer was called up under the National Service Acts, and joined up on 26th March, 1942. He was


commissioned with effect from 20th September, 1943, and I am informed that he is still a second lieutenant.

Pay and Allowances (Regulations)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to co-ordinate and simplify regulations governing the issue of pay and allowances to the Army.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for North Lanark (Major Anstruther-Gray) and South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 19th January, 1943. In addition to the steps referred to in that answer a number of minor simplifications have been introduced in the system of allowances. I can hold out no hope of any major simplification at this stage of the war, but I hope that the post-war pay code may be more simple.

Major Taylor: Is it fair to refer an hon. Member to a reply given over a year ago in regard to a Question which is now on the Order Paper?

Sir J. Grigg: I did my best to bring the answer up to date.

Medical Officers (Administrative Posts)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War how many members of the medical profession are employed in administrative posts in the Army or on other duties which do not involve the use of their medical skill; and, in view of the shortage of doctors, both in the services and among the civil population, whether he will arrange for administrative posts in the Royal Army Medical Corps to be filled by men who are not doctors.

Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. and gallant Friend's Question is taken literally the answer is "None, Sir." But, in view of the general shortage of doctors a detailed investigation has been made of Army medical establishments at home and abroad. Wherever possible officers without medical qualifications have replaced qualified medical officers employed on administrative duties, even in those posts where professional medical knowledge, although not essential, is very useful.

Major Taylor: Are there not a number of cases of doctors who very rarely if at

all use their medical skill and who are doing jobs which I submit are purely administrative in the Royal Army Medical Corps?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman means purely routine administrative jobs I imagine that the medical directors in command or in theatres of war abroad will have to be doctors because their medical knowledge is essential for the proper administration of the medical service.

Mr. de la Bère: Is the Secretary of State aware of the shortage of doctors in the rural areas? The matter is really very serious.

Oral Answers to Questions — TYPHUS EPIDEMIC, NAPLES

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any particulars as to the extent of the typhus epidemic in Naples.

Sir J. Grigg: The typhus epidemic in Naples is confined to the civilian population, among whom the incidence has steadily increased since the summer. Control of the epidemic is in the hands of the Deputy Chief Civil Affairs Officer and the United States Typhus Commission. Mass disinfestation and the inoculation of key personnel have been organised.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to award any special mark of distinction to those who, prior to E1 Alamein, fought in North Africa under exceptionally difficult conditions.

Sis J. Grigg: My hon. and gallant Friend will have an opportunity of raising this Question in the course of the forthcoming Debate on these matters.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has had under consideration the services rendered, during the Battle of Britain and subsequently, by the officers and men in the anti-aircraft units in home defence organisation; and if meritorious service, especially during the period of the Battle of Britain, will receive appropriate medals.

Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend is referring to the issue of awards such as the


1939–43 Star to officers and men who have served in Anti-Aircraft Command, he will no doubt bring forward his suggestion when the Debate on these questions takes place.

Sir P. Hannon: Am I to understand from that reply that the War Office appreciates the services of these units, and that the awards will be made in due course?

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the first part of the supplementary is certainly "Yes, Sir," but, as regards the second part, that must await the result of the Debate.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has any consideration been given to these men, who saw far more military service than many who are to be decorated?

Sir J. Grigg: Of course, a great deal of consideration has been given to them.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to announce the decision of his Department on the subject of decorations for men who have served and are serving in the H.G.; and if consideration will be given to retired members of the H.G. who have discharged the full conditions of service before discharge under the age limit, or otherwise.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. This will have to be considered in due course as part of the general question of the awards of decorations for service. It has, however, been decided to issue wound stripes and service chevrons to the Home Guard in the same way as they are to be issued to the Army in general. The instructions will be issued shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to hold a meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers or an Imperial conference in the near future.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Definite arrangements have been made for a meeting of Prime Ministers to be held within the next few months. For obvious reasons it will not be possible to announce the actual date in advance.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ministers have been saying this for about 18 months or two years now? Can he assure us that we are now very much nearer the meeting?

Mr. Attlee: Obviously.

Mr. Granville: How much nearer?

Hon. Members: Eighteen months.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (POST-WAR PAY AND ALLOWANCES)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether any committee has been appointed to consider and report on the pay, allowances, conditions of service and promotion of all three Fighting Services so that those men who wish to make service in one of the Armed Forces their career may know what their post-war prospects are.

Mr. Attlee: Sir, until a clearer idea can be obtained of the permanent post-war conditions and requirements, it would be premature to set up a committee on the lines suggested.

Major Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless there is an improvement in the pay, allowances and conditions, we shall not be able to get anybody to make the Armed Forces a career after the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR EMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister, which Department of State is now responsible for arrangements for securing full employment after the war; and to which of is Majesty's Ministers questions on this matter should be addressed.

Mr. Attlee: The maintenance of a high level of employment after the war will be a primary object of the policy of the Government as a whole, and cannot be the function of any single Department. Questions bearing on particular aspects should be addressed to the appropriate Minister. Questions of a general economic or financial character should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that Lord Woolton, who is now Minister of


Reconstruction, is not making it one of his primary functions to consider this question of full employment? If it is left to departmental action, may it not be that we shall miss the point when the time comes?

Mr. Attlee: It is not suggested by me that it is left to departmental action. The point was, which Minister should be asked particular questions. Obviously, if special questions relate to particular Ministers, it is undesirable that they should all be referred to the Minister of Reconstruction.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be a more tidy method of dealing with these questions if one Minister, on behalf of all the other Departments, were made responsible for replying, on a matter of such importance?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir, I do not think so.

Mr. Graham White: Is there any co-ordination among the three Ministers this work, or are they all working independently?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. Of course, it has all been worked out in committees.

Mr. Kirkwood: In the event of the Government's not being able to guarantee full employment, will they guarantee full maintenance, as far as the capacity of this country can do so?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE

Mr. Molson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no steps were taken to enforce in the years 1909 to 1923 the provisions of Section 36 of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909; and why the Industrial Assurance Commissioner has neglected from 1923 to 1944 to enforce the provisions of Section 3 of the Industrial Assurance Act of 1923.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): It is not possible at this date to say why no action was taken by the Board of Trade in regard to Section 36 of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. When the office of Industrial Assurance Commissioner was set up under the Act of 1923, the number of policies which might have contravened Section 3 of that Act was found to be very large. In these circumstances it would have been inappropriate

to prosecute in a particular case, but the Commissioner brought the matter before a committee appointed in 1931 to inquire and report on the law and practice relating to industrial assurance. I cannot accept the suggestion that there has been any negligence on the part of the Commissioner.

Mr. Molson: In view of the importance of this matter, and in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain more fully the attitude of the Government, and also in view of the fact that no action has been taken upon the report of the committee to which my right hon. Friend has referred, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Women (Equal Pay)

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the publication, a copy of which has been sent to him, entitled "Work, the future of British Industry," issued by the Conservative party sub-committee, on reconstruction; and whether, in view of the recommendation contained therein regarding equal pay for men and women doing equal work, he will now move to set up a Select Committee to make full inquiries with a view to the adoption of this principle within the Civil Service.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. I have read the publication in question, but am afraid I cannot depart from the statement I made in reply to my right hon. Friend on 23rd November.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the majority of Members in this House favour the immediate application of the principle of equal payment; and if he is not prepared to act upon it will he give the House an opportunity of debating the question?

Sir J. Anderson: The last part of the supplementary question is clearly not a matter for me, but there are ways in which the opinion of the House can be tested. I believe that it has not hitherto been considered reasonable to expect the Government to take the lead in this matter.

Temporary Personnel (Superannuation)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a scheme for providing, in suitable cases, a superannuation scheme for temporary civil servants.

Sir J. Anderson: As my right hon. Friend no doubt recognises the grant of superannuation privileges of necessity implies prolonged service and the prior question therefore must always be how far temporary staff can be given permanent status. The vast majority of the staff at present employed on a temporary footing will not be required permanently and for those there can be no question of establishment or pension privileges. I believe, however, that there is a problem which merits further examination and I will see that it is taken up as soon as more urgent matters are out of the way.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In considering this problem will the Chancellor of the Exchequer have regard to the fact that while a man who has put in long service becomes pensionable there are literally scores of thousands who have given long periods of service who have no pension at all because they are not established, and will he look into that angle of the question also?

Sir J. Anderson: I am well aware of that.

Political Activities

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will clarify the position with regard to participation of civil servants in politics, having regard to the refusal of the Board of Trade to permit Mr. D. Craven Griffiths, Secretary of the North Midland Regional Price Regulation Committee, to contest, as an Independent, the Clay Cross by-election, and the fact that Mr. A. G. Bottomley, Deputy Regional Commissioner for South-East England, has been adopted as a prospective Labour candidate for Chatham.

Sir J. Anderson: Civil servants are prohibited by Order in Council from becoming candidates or prospective candidates for Parliament until they have retired or resigned from their Civil Service employment. No question of the granting or withholding of permission to Mr. Griffiths is therefore involved. The position of Mr. Bottomley is different. The Regional Commissioners Act, 1939, expressly provides

that regional commissioners and deputy regional commissioners shall not by reason of their holding those offices be rendered incapable of being elected or of sitting or voting, as Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not unreasonable to require a civil servant to retire from the Civil Service before he knows whether he is elected or not? Would it not be better to allow him to stand and see whether he is successful?

Sir J. Anderson: I certainly do not myself take that view.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Awards to Inventors

Mr. Salt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to set up a Royal Commission or similar tribunal to deal with claims to compensation in respect of Government use of inventions during the war.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, at the appropriate time. It is contemplated that a Royal Commission will be given powers similar to those of the Royal Commission which heard claims of this character after the last war.

Sir William Davison: In the event of payment being made after the war, can steps be taken to distribute it over the years during which the invention was in use? Otherwise the unfortunate inventor will get only about half of that to which he is really entitled?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a separate question, to which I gave an answer last week.

Sir W. Davison: On a point of Order. Does it not arise out of this Question, which asks that a Royal Commission should be set up to consider payment of awards in respect to the Government's use of inventions during the war?

Armed Forces (Income Tax)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any new arrangements have been made regarding the payment of Income Tax by members of His Majesty's Forces; and whether the principle of pay as you earn applies, or whether they will continue to be assessed on the previous year's income.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for West Leeds (Major Vyvyan Adams) on 20th January, explaining that it was impracticable to apply "Pay as you Earn" to the Forces during the war. The question, however, of the basis of the assessment, as distinct from the method of collecting the tax, is at present under consideration.

Sir H. Williams: Will the new Bill be introduced before the Budget?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Income Tax Allowances (Uniforms)

Captain Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider granting an Income Tax allowance to officers of pre-entry military training organisations in respect of uniform, so as to place these officers who are carrying out their work voluntarily and who are constantly on duty, on the same plane as officers on pay who are granted an allowance up to £80 per annum.

Sir J. Anderson: Officers of the pre-entry military training organisations commissioned as such in His Majesty's Forces who are required to wear uniform and to bear the cost of its upkeep themselves are given an annual Income Tax deduction of £7 10s. for uniform expenses in computing the Income Tax assessment on any pay they may receive from Government funds in respect of their service. I am afraid that I cannot accept the suggestion that these officers should receive the same deductions for uniform expenses as are given to officers in the Regular Forces, or that the uniform deduction should be given against income other than their pay for service in the training organisation in question. I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the maximum deduction for uniform expenses allowed to officers in the Regular Forces is £40 per annum.

Interest-Free Loans

Mr. Graham White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as on the last convenient date, the amount of interest-free loans made to the Treasury since the outbreak of war.

Sir J. Anderson: The total received up to 18th January, 1944, was £63,427,000.

Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of drawing greater public attention to this desirable form of investment in connection with forthcoming savings campaigns?

Sir J. Anderson: I will certainly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY PROPOSALS

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a recent declaration of Mr. Morgenthau, the Secretary to the United States Treasury, that the international currency proposals will be submitted to Congress before the Inter-Allied Currency Conference meets at Washington; and whether he proposes to adopt the same procedure in regard to Parliament.

Sir J. Anderson: The answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative. As has been stated on a number of occasions, no commitment will be entered into without previous Debate in the House.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage he proposes to consult the Dominions?

Sir J. Anderson: I hope that discussion on what I may call the technical level with representatives of the Dominions will be held within the next few weeks.

Mr. Benson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proposals the Government are proposing to put forward in those discussions? The House of Commons at the present moment is in entire ignorance on the matter.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSEUMS (STANDING COMMISSION)

Major Markham: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is now the composition of the Standing Commission on Museums; and whether there is now any representative of provincial institutions on this Commission.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the members


of the Commission. The Commission has not at any time included a representative of provincial institutions.

Major Markham: In view of the fact that the late Sir Henry Miers represented the provincial museums on the Commission would it not be extremely judicious to continue to have a representative of provincial institutions?

Mr. Assheton: The late Sir Henry Miers was a representative of the Science Museum. It so happens that he was also president of the Museums Association but that was a chance.

Major Markham: May I invite a reply to the second part of my Supplementary Question as to whether it would not be judicious to have a provincial representative on this Commission?

Mr. Assheton: Under the circumstances I think it is probably wiser to leave things as they are, as this particular Commission's functions relate primarily to the various national institutions and not the provincial institutions.

Following is the list:

Chairman:

The Rt. Hon. Earl Stanhope, K.G., D.S.O.

Members:

Sir Lawrence Bragg, O.B.E., M.C., F.R.S.
The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.
Professor J. S. Gardiner, F.R.S.
The Earl of Harewood, K.G., K.C.V.O., D.S.O.
The Earl of Ilchester, O.B.E., F.S.A.
The Rt. Hon. Lord Normand, K.C.
Sir Charles Peers, C.B.E., F.B.A., F.R.I.B.A., Litt.D.
Mr. G. M. Young, C.B.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESCAPED PRISONERS OF WAR (CREDITS, REFUND)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider refunding the individual credits left in the hands of the senior British officer in prisoner of war camps in Germany to prisoners who have escaped to this country, relying on the statement of the officer concerned, or if considered necessary, on the notification of the amount by the senior British officer through the International Red Cross.

Sir J. Grigg: In the interests of those who are still prisoners I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to avoid any

public discussion of those who have escaped from the enemy. If he will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind they will be looked into, and I can assure him that everything will be done which can be, without prejudice to those who are still in enemy hands.

Sir A. Knox: Surely there is no danger in giving these people who happen to escape money to which they are entitled? Why should they be deprived of the use of the money during the war?

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to that question is precisely the reason why I do not want to answer it publicly. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is desirable not to debate this publicly. If he has specific cases in mind I will give him answers about them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVING MEMBERS OF PARLIA MENT (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention in future to make sure that no hon. Member of this House serving in the Army shall be permitted to address a public meeting outside his own constituency.

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the replies given by the Prime Minister on Wednesday last.

Sir R. Acland: These replied, so far as they are not ambiguous, say that such officers must conform to the Regulations, and the Regulations say that such an officer must not speak outside his constituency. Is the Minister going to see that these officers do conform to the Regulations or not?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware of any cases in which they have not conformed to the Regulations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as regards political meetings. If my hon. Friend has cases in mind I will certainly look into them and will certainly bring the Regulations to the officer's attention.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Whips' Office asks serving officers to go down and speak in support of Government candidates?

Sir J. Grigg: I was not aware of that. I will certainly look into it.

Mr. H. Lawson: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the present position with the statement he made in the House in October last when he said:
I think it is extremely desirable that we should not be too literal in the interpretation of these Regulations.
Further he said—
It has always been the desire of this House that Members should be treated exceptionally,
that is, referring to this particular matter.

Sir J. Grigg: I have refreshed my memory and there seems to be no discrepancy between the two statements.

Mr. Maxton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman see that these Regulations relate to conditions entirely different from those we are living in now? They are completely out of date and ought to be overhauled.

Sir J. Grigg: The recent practice does represent some relaxation from the letter of the Regulations.

Mr. Kendall: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Kettering (Major Profumo) during the by-election at Grantham spoke on a political platform in uniform under the chairmanship of the lord lieutenant of the county?

Sir J. Grigg: I was not aware of that but I will certainly look into it.

Sir H. Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why it was that the Minister of Information invited the Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, to sit on the platform when the Secretary of State for Air made a political speech last week?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS (POST-WAR POLICY)

Captain Gammans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on post-war road policy.

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will publish particulars or plans of his Department for the post-war construction of motorways.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As the answer is rather long, I

will, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, make a statement at the end of Questions to-day.

Later—

Mr. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Government have considered on what lines the improvement and development of our highway system could best proceed after the war and they think that some preliminary indication of their general views would be helpful, both to highway and local authorities in framing their own plans, and to others who are interested. Proposals to improve and extend the road system must in the first place be viewed in relation to the efficiency and development of our inland transport system as a whole. Such proposals must also be framed with full regard to the interests of town and country planning, the location and requirements of industry, including agriculture, and other aspects of national development. My Ministry will, therefore, maintain contact with the many other departments concerned, as well as with the local and highway authorities.
In the Government's opinion, there is a clear case for extending the present trunk road system, and they have it in mind, in consultation with the county councils, to frame legislation which would substantially increase the existing mileage of trunk roads (that is to say, about 4,500 miles) which is at present vested in the Minister of War Transport. Where a bypass which forms a link in a trunk road passes through the area of a county borough (or in Scotland through a large Burgh) it will probably be found right to vest this section also in the Minister. Discussions will be opened at once with the highway authorities, in order to select the additional roads to be scheduled as trunk roads. We intend to continue the arrangements under which the existing authorities can act as the Minister's agents. In order to secure the full advantages of new developments, it may also be found necessary to plan some new trunk roads, where the line of the existing road is not satisfactory. The possibility of simplifying the present somewhat complicated system of grants to highway authorities is being considered.
Consideration has been given to the proposals made in various quarters for the construction of a new system of motorways, to relieve the pressure on our


existing main roads. While the Government do not think that there is sufficient justification for embarking upon the construction of a widespread system of entirely new roads reserved exclusively for motor traffic, they are satisfied that it will be expedient and economical to construct suitable lengths of roads of this type, where engineering and traffic considerations make this course preferable to the extensive re-modelling of existing roads, in an attempt to make them more suitable and safer for mixed traffic. In selecting lengths of road for this treatment, the Ministry would be guided by the proper development of our transport system as a whole by the convenience of road traffic, and by sound principles of town and country planning. Due regard would be paid to cost and amenity. There is a strong case for reserving exclusively for motor traffic some of the by-pass and other roads designed to enable motor traffic to avoid passing through built-up areas. The value of such roads is too often seriously reduced by their use for mixed traffic and by the frequent access accorded to traffic entering from minor roads. Proposals to give the necessary authority for this purpose will be laid before Parliament in due course.
The roads of the country have on the whole stood up well to the heavy demands of war, but there will inevitably be large arrears of work, both of maintenance and improvement, to be carried out, as conditions permit. The rate of execution of the highway programme must be adjusted from time to time to general economic conditions, but, without imposing any undue rigidity, the following order of priority will be a good guide during the transitional period; first, overtaking the arrears of maintenance; second, the resumption of works closed down during the war, if that is still desirable; third, works essential to public safety or to the re-construction of blitzed areas, and works of special value to areas in urgent need of new industrial development; fourth, the elimination of obstructions to traffic on important roads, such as weak or narrow bridges, level crossings and the linking up of improved sections of roads on important traffic routes; fifth, other works of improvement of high economic value. This list is not intended to suggest any absolute priority, in the sense that every highway authority would be

expected to complete all its maintenance work before it turns to works of improvement; in practice there must be over lapping of the different items.
The Government intend to encourage the preparation of major schemes of improvement, including some which are not considered at present of high priority, so that these schemes may form part of a long term and comprehensive programme of public works, available and ready to be put in hand, if general economic activity begins to give indications of an approaching decline. Without precluding progress in the preparation of other schemes in England and Wales and in Scotland that can be shown to be desirable, for traffic and economic reasons, the Government attach importance, on the ground of its great economic value to South Wales to the provision of a new road crossing of the Severn Estuary. We think that the re-investigation of the project for a Severn Barrage, which has just been instituted by the Minister of Fuel and Power, should not stand in the way of the provision of a new crossing, in view of the time which it would necessarily take to construct the Barrage, if it were to be undertaken. Highway authorities will be encouraged to proceed at once with such preparations as are possible in present circumstances to enable the policy which I have outlined in this statement to be pursued as rapidly as may be practicable.

Mr. Mathers: Will the examination, of which the Minister has given an indication in this statement, include a consideration of the relative claims of the different projects for bridging the Firth of Forth near Queensferry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We shall consider all the plans which the competent authorities lay before us.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the limitation placed on the length of a Question addressed by a Member, applies also to the length of the answer which the Minister gives to the Question?

Sir H. Williams: Further to that point of Order. Is it not very desirable, when a statement of this importance is made bringing in, as it does, certain elements of controversy, that it should not be made at a time when debate cannot follow forthwith?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The highway and other authorities are extremely anxious to have some indication of the Government's policy, and I thought the House would desire that this indication should, first, be given in the House itself.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: May I ask whether, in view of the very important statement we have had on the Government proposal with regard to road reconstruction, we cannot have a day for discussing the matter?

Mr. McKinlay: May I have an answer on the point as to the length of a Question which is accepted at the Table, as compared with the length of the answer?

Mr. Speaker: The position is quite clear. There are no definite rules, but we always try to limit a Question to 10 lines of the Order Paper. In regard to the answer, while we do not interfere, it is desirable that it should not be too long, but that depends on the discretion of the Minister. On this occasion, the hon. Member will realise that the statement was not in answer to a Question, but was an opportunity allowed to a Minister to make a statement on policy after Questions.

Mr. Granville: May I ask, in view of the fact that we have had three of these statements to-day, whether it is not possible to have notice put upon the Order Paper beforehand; and if that is not possible, may I suggest that some notice should be put behind Mr. Speaker's Chair so that hon. Members may know when these statements are going to be made and arrange to be present in the Chamber?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was, in fact, answering two Questions on the Paper, and if this procedure is not liked, I am to blame, because I have encouraged Ministers not to give long answers during the Question Hour but to give those answers at the end of Questions. I have also encouraged them to make their statements in the House rather than anywhere else. Then, I think the question arises whether, after the statements have been studied and examined, Debate is required or not. That is quite a separate issue which can be considered by the House, and my reply to the hon. Member would be that when the answer has been considered, we can see whether there should be a Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister says that road authorities are anxious to have this statement and that that is why this long answer has been given. In view of that, may I draw attention to the fact that local authorities are very anxious to have a statement on housing policy; and could not the Secretary of State be asked to make a long statement dealing with Scotland?

Mr. Maxton: Is it not a fact that once these long statements have been made and the House has not actively dissented the Minister goes ahead on the assumption that he has got the approval of the House to the new line of policy, whereas he has only answered some question? Will the Leader of the House take care that these statements are not statements of policy, which cannot be operated without the consent of the House, because the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was that now that he had made an answer in the House local authorities could go ahead with their road plans?

Colonel Arthur Evans: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the desirability of abolishing the remaining toll gates in the country, particularly in South Wales, including those on the road from Cardiff to Barry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, we shall always be most anxious to abolish toll gates.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can we be assured that a census or a survey will be taken in large towns which lie upon main roads? For instance, the Great North Road runs through Doncaster, where congestion takes places every day, and is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take evidence as to the need for diversions and by-passes of the kind he has indicated?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is what I meant when I said that, in many places, entirely new roads would be required.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he is not prepared to give a day for a discussion upon this all-absorbing topic?

Mr. Eden: I have already dealt fully with that point. If I may say so, I think the House would be wise not to attempt to restrict Ministers in these statements, because it is our method of giving in formation directly. In reply to my hon.


Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I quite agree that a mere statement does not mean that the whole House approves, but the whole House is cognisant of what the Government propose to do, or of their intentions, and I think that is a step in the direction he would wish.

Mr. Gallacher: We do not wish the Minister to by-pass this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES BARRAGE PROPOSAL

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can give any information in connection with the proposal to build a dam across the Thames in the Woolwich area; and what action he intends taking about the matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, my Noble Friend recently received a deputation, the members of which urged upon him the advantages of building a dam across the Thames at Woolwich. My hon. Friend will realise that there is a considerable divergence of opinion about the merits of this proposal, and that many important interests are involved. For these reasons, and in view of the technical complexity of the matter, a prolonged and detailed inquiry would be required before a decision to build a barrage could be made. I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that this inquiry can be begun during the period of the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALLPAPER SUPPLIES

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Production (1) what arrangements have been made for accumulating stocks of wallpaper for use after the war in connection with newly-constructed houses;
(2) what arrangements have been made to ensure the supply of wallpaper at the present time for houses which need re-papering.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): I regret that the present paper supply position does not permit of any such arrangements being made. The matter will, however, be reviewed from time to time, so that early advantage may be taken of any change in the circumstances.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Might I have an answer to Question No. 75?

Mr. Garro Jones: That is one of the Questions to which my hon. Friend has just received an answer. I shall be glad to elucidate any points of difficulty if he will tell me them.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has answered the Question at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Demerara Sugar (Imports)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Food whether any Demerara sugar is being imported into this country; and in what way is it being distributed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): Yes, Sir. The very small quantities imported are distributed to the trade in the same way as sugar refined in this country.

Milk (Theft Charge)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made against the cowman named Edmunds for stealing 2,676 gallons of milk and other charges made against him; and what action he intends taking to prevent similar thefts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply, and I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend will send me some particulars as to where the case occurred. On the information given in his Question, it is not possible to identify the case with certainty.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.F.S. AND CIVIL DEFENCE PERSONNEL (KING'S BADGE)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that members of the three Services discharged for wounds received in action and who are in receipt of a pension as a result are entitled to wear a silver badge, whereas members of the N.F.S. and C.D. services under identical conditions are debarred from so doing; and will he remedy this anomaly in view of the general desire for such action.

Mr. Peake: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to him on 20th January.

Sir J. Lucas: I put this Question down to the Prime Minister, who has passed it back to the Home Secretary. When I spoke to the Home Secretary outside he said that he had every sympathy but he could not do anything as it was a question for the Prime Minister. To whom should I put the Question now, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I might give an answer if I had heard what the hon. and gallant Member said. In the circumstances, I cannot.

Sir J. Lucas: The Question was put to the Prime Minister, and he referred it back to the Home Secretary again. Could I have an answer to the Question?

Mr. Peake: As I understand, my right hon. Friend, in giving his answer last week, referred to an admirable answer given by the Prime Minister on 22nd September, indicating that this matter was likely to be raised in Debate very shortly.

Sir J. Lucas: But the answer given then had nothing to do with the Fire Service and Civil Defence: it was only a military question. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLIVIA (BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE)

Sir Austin Hudson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding Bolivia.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. On 20th December, 1943, the Bolivian Government, under General Peñaranda, which had declared war on Germany and signed the United Nations Declaration some months previously, was overthrown by force, and replaced by a revolutionary Junta. Information which is available to us indicates that this development was connected with the activities of subversive groups hostile to the cause of the United Nations, which are at work in the Western Hemisphere. His Majesty's Government have been in the closest consultation on this subject with the United States Government. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not recognise the Junta as the legal Government of Bolivia. His Majesty's Minister designate to La Paz will not, therefore,

now proceed to take up his post. The Governments of the United States, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Uruguay and Venezuela, have all declared officially that they do also not recognise the revolutionary Junta at La Paz.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Is there any evidence that this movement in South America is to any extent organised or stimulated through Spain?

Mr. Eden: The evidence which I have here is, I think, fairly plain that subversive groups hostile to the cause of the United Nations are responsible, and we believe that they are in touch with nations with whom we are at war.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Will the United Kingdom Government fake not only diplomatic action, but the same economic action as the United States Government have taken, in regard to Bolivia?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman heard my answer, I think it shows that we are in step with the United States in this matter.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Are not subversive activities in the whole of South America being carried on now from the German Embassy in Spain; and will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, try to find out what is being done, not merely in Bolivia but in other parts of South America, including Uruguay and Brazil?

Mr. Eden: There are no German Embassies in Uruguay and Brazil.

Mr. Maclean: I mean, what is being done in Uruguay and Brazil through the German Embassy in Spain.

Mr. Eden: I was answering the hon. Member. There is a German Embassy in South America. When that goes I think the position will improve.

Mr. Gallacher: Are not the Falangists very active in all these South American States?

Mr. Eden: I have said that I believe these activities to be organised in the main by German agents.

MILK SALES (RESTRICTIONS)

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): With the permission of the House, I would like to make a short explanatory


statement on Defence Regulation 55G, which has just been published. The policy of the Government in regard to "Measures to Improve the Quality of the Nation's Milk Supply" was set out in a White Paper published in July last. This regulation carries out that policy in so far as it is concerned with the control of the classes of milk sold in certain areas. The need for this control was fully explained in the White Paper.
The Regulation prohibits the sale of milk by retail in areas to be specified in Orders to be made by me, unless it is

either T.T. milk, and in Scotland, certified milk
or accredited milk; in Scotland, standard milk, so long as in both these cases they are derived from a single herd;
or heat treated, pasteurised, or sterilised milk.

The areas which will be specified are those in which a rationalisation scheme is in force for economising the use of men and vehicles and thereby having the effect of restricting consumers in the choice of their dairymen. No area will be specified until I am satisfied that facilities exist for supplying adequate quantities of heat treated milk to meet the requirements of the area.

ADJOURNMENT (RULE)

Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in a matter which interests a large number of hon. Members. Since the new Order was passed affecting the Adjournment on days when the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) has been carried, there has been uncertainty as to whether the period of half-an-hour is reckoned from the termination of opposed Business or from the termination of Government Business; and on occasions that may involve a difference of as much as 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising this question, because I was given notice the other day that there was a little lack of knowledge on the subject. The half-hour starts from the time when the Business for which we have suspended the Rule ends. Sometimes there may be a little Business after that, which will come out of the half-hour For instance, the other evening

the Business for which the Rule was suspended ended at three minutes to the hour, and the Minister concerned was somewhat alarmed, because he had his peroration to make, when I stopped him at three minutes before the half-hour. That was correct. We should remember that the half-hour starts when the Business ends for which the Rule has been suspended, but out of that half-hour may come time for some other Government Business, when the half hour will end not at 30 minutes past but at 10 or 20 past or 27 minutes past, depending entirely on the time at which the Government Business for which the Rule had been specially suspended ended. I hope I have made the position clear.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business of the House on the Fourth Sitting Day?

Mr. Eden: In addition to the Business I have announced we hope there will be an opportunity of taking the Committee stage of the Education [Money] Resolution on the Fourth Sitting Day, after we have obtained the other Business.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1943

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee for me to point out that we have for discussion a Supplementary Vote of Credit for 1943 and a Vote of Credit for 1944, both of which cover the same ground. With the consent of the Committee, I propose that the discussion should take place upon the Supplementary Vote of Credit, and then the Committee may be willing to pass the Vote of Credit formally and without debate. May I take it that that is agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

UNITED NATIONS (RELIEF ADMINISTRATION)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): When I addressed the Committee on 4th November and asked for a further Vote of Credit for £1,250,000,000, making £4,250,000,000 in all to that date, I said the new Vote would probably carry us on to about the middle of February. That forecast still appears likely to prove fairly accurate, and, accordingly, I have now to ask the Committee to vote a further sum to meet our requirements for the remainder of the financial year. In accordance with the procedure which has been adopted, with the assent of the Committee, in previous

war years, I may point out, I am, at the same time, asking for a separate Vote of £1,000,000,000 on account of the provision which will be necessary in the new financial year which begins on 1st April. At this stage, it is, as the Committee will understand, extremely difficult to estimate precisely what our expenditure is likely to amount to in the remaining period of the year. During recent weeks, our total war expenditure has averaged a daily rate of a little over £13,250,000, of which about £11,000,000 per day is on fighting and supply services and £2,250,000 a day on miscellaneous war services. These figures are, in fact, almost the same as those which I gave to the Committee on the occasion of the last Vote of Credit in November. Experience, however, has led us to expect some slight increase in the flow of expenditure in the closing period of the financial year.
A further point arises on this last Vote of Credit for the year. For technical reasons, with which I need not trouble the Committee, the actual expenditure chargeable to the accounts of a particular year does not necessarily agree exactly with the amount of cash issued from the Exchequer during the course of the year. Cash may be issued in any year which, for the time being, merely augments the large working balances which many Departments must keep in present circumstances, and expenditure out of that balance may have to be covered by a Vote of the subsequent year. For that reason, I must allow some margin in this final Supplementary Estimate. It is, in fact, quite probable that the final Exchequer account may show cash drawings on Vote of Credit account approximating very closely to the figures of £4,900,000,000 included by my predecessor in his Budget statement last April, but, allowing a margin for the reason which I have mentioned and for unforeseen contingencies, I should like to have Votes for £5,000,000,000 for the whole year. The total for the present Supplementary Estimate has, therefore, been fixed at £750,000,000.
The Committee will no doubt have noticed that, on this occasion, the estimates before them show a small but important and significant addition to the rather long description of the purpose for which these periodical Votes of Credit are required. In technical language, the ambit of the Vote is being enlarged by the


insertion in line 9 of the Supplementary Vote of the words:
For relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations.
This change marks a new phase of the war—a phase which, while quite distinct in character from the military activities which must necessarily precede it is, nevertheless, dependent upon and bound up with those military activities, and is an essential part of the great and complex task which confronts this country and our Allies of liberating and restoring the conquered and oppressed countries of the world and of destroying the forces of aggression. The Committee would, no doubt, like me to give some account of recent developments in regard to this important work to be undertaken in the wake of the liberating armies.
As the Committee may recall, an agreement was signed in the White House at Washington by representatives of the United Nations on 9th November last, setting up the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, under a constitution which has been published as Command Paper 6491. On the next day, the Council of U.N.R.R.A., which I may, perhaps, conveniently term this new administration, met for the first time at Atlantic City. The Council completed its session on 1st December, having, in the short space of some three weeks, passed a formidable number of Resolutions outlining the policies and methods of administration to be followed by U.N.R.R.A. and the means of financing its operation. The Resolutions of the Council have been published as Command Paper 6497. I think the Committee will be impressed by the comprehensive character of the work done at this first Council of U.N.R.R.A., and I would draw particular attention to the speed with which it worked and the evidence which it thus gave of an urgent desire to get on with its task. The achievement of this Council was, I think, made possible by the long preliminary work which has been done, mainly, of course, in Washington and London, starting with the meeting of the Allied Governments at St. James's Palace in September, 1941. It was clear, however, at Atlantic City, that preparatory work on the subject of relief had engaged the attention of other Governments as well as those of the United States and the United Kingdom,

and the Council at Atlantic City was not least remarkable for the demonstration it gave of co-operation in a common purpose between all the United Nations. There were, naturally, some conflicting views and some conflicting interests, but there was a common desire to design a United Nations machine of the kind that would best perform the work that had to be done.
In an early session, the Council elected Mr. Herbert H. Lehman to be Director-General of U.N.R.R.A. On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our pleasure that Mr. Lehman's services are available for this work and of assuring him of our closest co-operation in carrying it out. The Committee will have noticed with interest that my hon. Friend the Junior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has accepted Mr. Lehman's invitation to act as his senior deputy in the headquarters of the Administration in Washington. The hon. Member brings great qualities and much relevant experience to the task. His Majesty's Government have also been pleased to make available the services of an able and well-tried officer, Sir Frederick Leith Ross, who is to have a post as Director-General for Europe. The United Kingdom representative on the Council at Atlantic City was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Minister of Food (Mr. Llewellin). The happy results of the Council's work were largely due to the part he played, assisted by Sir Frederick Leith Ross, who was his deputy, and the representatives of the London Departments and the Missions in Washington. I would like to mention also the work of the Inter-Allied Committee on Post-war Requirements, which played a very great part in collaboration with the Dominions and the United States in preparing the ground, both for the Council's meeting at Atlantic City and the subsequent work of relief itself.

Captain Bernays: I am not quite clear about that. Is Mr. Lehman to sever all connection with the United States administration? Will he be an international civil servant?

Sir J. Anderson: All these officers I mentioned will be international, and will be answerable to the Council of


U.N.R.R.A.—an international body. I shall make only the briefest reference to the Atlantic City resolutions, and the work of U.N.R.R.A. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be ready, later in the Debate, to deal with the subject in greater detail. I would only say that U.N.R.R.A. must take its place in the whole complex of Anglo-American and United Nations supply machinery which has been developed in the course of the war. In particular, the Atlantic City resolutions fully recognise the need that U.N.R.R.A. should avoid overlapping with the work of the Combined boards and with the machinery for consultation between the nations associated with those boards. Some such machinery must, certainly, be kept in existence, if we are to avoid a scramble for supplies and an inflation of prices, which common sense and experience alike condemn.
The particular task of U.N.R.R.A., in association with other agencies, will fall under two heads: First, it will have to see to the provision of essential imports and services required for those territories which cannot, for the time being, whether through lack of finance or lack of shipping, provide for themselves: Second, it will have to see that the common interests of all nations, in the re-establishment of all distressed areas, is not defeated by allotting supplies to territories in the fortunate possession of resources in finance and shipping to an extent incompatible with the maintenance of a reasonable standard elsewhere. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am primarily concerned with the first of these functions. At Atlantic City the United States Delegation, whose head, Mr. Dean Acheson, was elected chairman of the first Council and whose very great personal success in that capacity ensured the success of the whole session, put forward the proposal embodied in what is called the Financial Plan in the Council's resolutions. This plan provides that the basis of the contributions to the work in hand should be that each of the United sand Associated Nations whose home territory has not been overrun, should contribute, in all, a sum equal to one per cent. of one year's national income. There is necessarily a qualification to this proposal. Just as in Income Tax, a higher rate is charged on the higher levels of income, so, in this field, the poorer countries may

be unable, without disproportionate sacrifice, to contribute at the same rate as the richer countries. Regard should be had, of course, not only to comparative wealth, but to the burden already shouldered by contributing governments. Accordingly, the Council will recommend to all member governments, whose home territories have not been overrun, a contribution of one per cent. of their national income, recognising that there are cases in which this recommendation may conflict with particular demands arising from the continuance of the war or may be excessively burdensome because of special circumstances and where, therefore, some departure from the contribution recommended may be appropriate. The other side of the problem is the determination of the territories which are to benefit by the contribution.

Mr. Palmer: How will the national income be calculated?

Sir J. Anderson: I will refer to that later. The other side of the problem is the determination of the territories which are to benefit by the contributions. On this the Financial Plan recommended at Atlantic City wisely refrained from laying down particular rules and leaves the decision to a small committee, which will settle the use of the funds available as the work proceeds. We should naturally expect that, as time goes on, the territories in need of assistance will be starting up their own economic life and their exports and will, gradually, be able to reduce their dependence on outside help.
The Financial Plan does, however, make certain broad statements. It lays down that the policy of U.N.R.R.A. shall be that an applicant government shall not be required to assume the burden of an enduring foreign exchange debt for the procurement of relief and of rehabilitation supplies and services; and, in the determination of whether a territory is in a position to pay, its foreign exchange assets and its sources of foreign exchange shall be taken into account and due consideration shall be given to its need of foreign exchange for other purposes. The object of U.N.R.R.A. has been defined as, "to help the countries to help themselves." Those who cannot pay for what they need will be helped until they can. The countries which are in a position to pay will, of course, be expected to do so and, in particular, payment for supplies


that may be made available to ex-enemy territories must constitute a claim of high priority on the territories in question. I come now to the contribution which the United Kingdom is to make to this work.

Dr. Haden Guest: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the nations and territories which have been overrun by the enemy are not to be asked to make a contribution. In Command Paper 6497—a copy of which I have in my hand—on page 34, it is stated, among other things, that Belgium is asked to make a contribution of one per cent. of the national income. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what these figures mean, in order to avoid any misunderstanding?

Sir Anderson: I shall deal with that point later. I think that my hon. Friend is not distinguishing between expenditure on relief, and expenditure on administration. The countries which have been overrun are being asked, not to make a one per cent. national income contribution—I will come to that point later—but to make a contribution to administrative expenses.

Dr. Guest: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that clear.

Sir J. Anderson: As I said, I now come to the contribution which the United Kingdom is to make to this work. In the last Budget White Paper our national income for the calendar year, 1942, was estimated at £7,384,000,000. On the best estimate that we can make at this time, there has been some increase in the national income and for the year ended 30th June, 1943, the one per cent. figure may be put at a round £76,000,000 to £77,000,000. His Majesty's Government propose that we should take the round figure of £80,000,000 as the contribution of this country for this purpose of relief and rehabilitation.
Under the Atlantic City resolutions, our share of the administrative expenditure on U.N.R.R.A. will be taken out of our general contributions. There will, of course, be an administrative budget by means of which the establishment and other administrative charges will be scrutinised and controlled. There will also be an allocation of the approved administrative budget among the member countries. By this arrangement, those

countries whose home territories have been overrun and who will, therefore, not be making a general contribution—and this is the point that my hon. and gallant Friend was talking about—will still have a basis for a contribution to the administrative expenses. But those countries which are making a general contribution are not required to pay their share of administrative expenses separately or in addition to their general contribution. This arrangement has the convenience of avoiding asking the legislatures for two separate appropriations for the same general purpose. The Council of U.N.R.R.A. at Atlantic City approved an administrative budget of 10,000,000 dollars for the thirteen months to the end of the calendar year, 1944. Having regard to the scope of the work in prospect, I think this figure is moderate and reasonable. The details of the relationship between U.N.R.R.A. and the military authorities during the first period of liberation are not yet clear. This period, must, to some extent, be one of improvised arrangements and nothing must be allowed to interfere with the main object, which is the advance of our arms. We recognise that during this period relief to the civil population will have to be administered at first by the civil affairs staff of the Commander in the field. We realise, therefore, that the burden of a measure of relief may fall on us which, in practice, may turn out to be in addition to our £80,000,000.
The question may be raised, whether the contributions recommended at Atlantic City will amount to a total sufficient for the job. No definite answer can, of course, be given to that question. There are uncertainties about what will be the state of the territories concerned when hostilities cease, and there are uncertainties about the availability of supplies and shipping to meet their needs at a level which we would wish to see them attain. All that can be said is that the contributions proposed should see us a very long way towards the completion of the task. U.N.R.R.A. is not the only organisation which we hope to see the United Nations establish. Its scope, as I have outlined it, is large and difficult indeed but it leaves a great deal still to be worked out. It does not, for example, cover the wider field of reconstruction, and it could hardly set out to be a body to deal with the future


economic life of Europe or the Far East But it has a task to perform which, if left undone, would make impossible the further work which the nations together have still to tackle, and I hope the Committee will support His Majesty's Government in the contribution which they propose to make, and the co-operation which they have offered, to U.N.R.R.A.
The Committee will understand that, from the nature of the case, it is at present impossible to estimate in advance how much we shall have to contribute in any given period. Further, the provision of the goods and services which we are under obligation to supply to U.N.R.R.A. will, in most cases, be inextricably bound up with the provision of similar supplies for war purposes. For these reasons, the Vote of Credit provides the natural and convenient and, in fact, the only practicable source for the provision of the necessary funds. I shall be ready to inform Parliament, from time to time, of the current total of our contributions.

Mr. Greenwood: I am very glad we are having this Debate because it is one of fundamental importance. It is high time that Parliament gave its mind to some of the issues involved and assured itself of the progress that is actually being made. I should like to carry history back a little further than the conference at Atlantic City, for we are apt to forget the part that we played in the earlier days in thinking out plans to deal with relief and rehabilitation. It was on 12th June, 1941, on the initiative of the British Government, that the Allies were brought together at St. James's Palace and attended in full strength under the chairmanship of the British Prime Minister. They then unanimously passed a resolution, Part (3) of which I will read to the Committee:
That the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing co-operation of free peoples in a world, in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security; and that it is their intention to work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace to this end."—
—words which have the ringing tones of the Atlantic Charter, which was signed by the President of the United States and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of Great Britain, two short months later. I mention this to show that two and a half years ago, on the initiative of His

Majesty's Government, the Allies were beginning to consider, broadly, the shape of things to come. At that time Britain had decided, without looking for the aid of Allies who were not then in the field, to march along that particular path and had definitely in mind these questions of relief and rehabilitation. On 24th September, 1941, a further inter-Allied conference was held at St. James's Palace arising out of the previous conference. It carried matters somewhat further. At that conference my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary presided; the U.S.S.R. which, by that time was in the war, was represented by its then Ambassador and a unanimous resolution was passed by the Allied Powers present—which included most of them. They agreed:

"(1) That it is their common aim to secure that supplies of food, raw materials and articles of prime necessity should be made available for the post-war needs of the countries liberated from Nazi oppression.
(2) That while each of the Allied Governments and authorities will be primarily responsible for making provision for the economic needs of its own peoples, their respective plans should be co-ordinated in a spirit of inter-allied collaboration, for the successful achievement of the common aim."

The resolution went on in greater detail to deal with the question of food stuffs, raw materials, and articles of prime necessity, reprovisioning, and the beginning of the re-development of the released territories. A speech in support of the resolution was made by M. Maisky—no longer here—who said:
Attributing great importance to the equitable use of all material resources and foodstuffs in the post-war period, the Soviet Government believes that the most imperative and most pressing task of to-day is the correct allocation of all the economic resources and war supplies with a view to an early liberation of all the European peoples now oppressed by Hitlerite slavery.
That, I think, was the general tone of that conference. I now wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the opening statement made at that conference, by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He said:
As the Allied representatives will have realised from the note inviting them to this meeting, a certain amount of preliminary work has been accomplished preparatory to this further meeting to-day, to which I am very happy, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to welcome the representatives of the Dominions and of our Allies.
A great deal of work was done under the direction of Sir Frederick Leith Ross to


whom my right hon. Friend paid perfectly adequate tribute and whose qualities I, when in office, fully appreciated. I mention these facts to emphasise that Great Britain undertook great responsibilities for post-war relief even before we had firm assurances that other great Powers, not then involved in the war, would come to our assistance. I emphasise that because we cannot escape these moral responsibilities by clothing ourselves with the mantle of lethargy. At long last, towards the end of November, the first session of the Council of U.N.R.R.A. met. I am afraid that we have to use the term "U.N.R.R.A."; it is a monstrosity, but if the organisation does the right, thing, we will forgive its name. The conclusions reached represent, I think, one of the most important documents yet issued on post-war matters. It devises machinery which, if wholeheartedly and generously operated, will deal with the gigantic problem with which we shall be faced at the end of the war. May I remind the Committee that the year after the Armistice of 1918, was a year of shocking mess and muddle in dealing with the immediate post-war situation? The problems which will confront us after the defeat of Germany will be colossal even as compared with the situation, difficult though it was, after the Armistice of 1918.
Starvation is rampant over the greater part of occupied Europe to-day, and the situation will not improve. It will grow worse. Increasing debility, lowered resistance to disease, epidemics of typhus and a growing amount of tuberculosis—all these things will become more dangerous because of the large-scale forced migration which has taken place. The International Labour Organisation put the figure at 17,500,000 and I imagine that to-day 20,000,000 people have been driven from their homes and countries, and that a great many of them have become disease-carriers. At the end of the war they will wish to return to their own countries. That, in itself, is a piece of ordered migration on a scale hitherto unknown in human history. Scientific migration was introduced in this war by Adolf Hitler. We need—equally scientifically and rather more humanely—to reverse that process, and that presents us with problems on a very, very large scale. I do not need to continue to paint a gloomy picture of what Europe will look

like when the good day comes, but it is clear that we shall be faced with a problem of extraordinary complexity and magnitude. I think U.N.R.R.A. has taken a very broad view of the tasks which lie before it. They fall, broadly, into two categories, which are given in the report under four heads. There is "Relief Supplies," the urgent satisfaction of primary human needs for food, clothing, footwear, medical attention and shelter and there is "Relief Services," without which these simple elementary human needs cannot be satisfied. Then there are the wider group of problems classified under, "Rehabilitation, Supplies and Services," which covers such things as fertilisers, equipment machinery and spare parts, and the Rehabilitation of Public Utilities," such as power, water, gas, and the like, without which the rehabilitation is clearly impracticable.
Relief must, inevitably, pass into the rehabilitation stage. In fact, the transition will become automatic and unnoticeable. Relief means, I suppose, in a very broad sense, physical sustenance, physical recovery of people and rehabilitation means the beginning of economic revival and recovery. I do not think that our responsibilities can end there and there was nothing said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would indicate that that was the view of His Majesty's Government. We have had this document which, as I have said, is of first-class importance and a very noteworthy publication. But we have had other conclusions. In the autumn of 1942, in New York, the I.L.O. delivered itself of important principles concerning action to be taken when the opportunity arises and the Hot Springs Conference last year adumbrated a long-term policy for ensuring freedom from starvation in the world. All this is to the good. But we need now to clothe those statements of general principle with a fuller meaning, to apply them to practical plans. Further, I think it is clear that the methods which we adopt for dealing with relief, and the policy we follow in dealing particularly with rehabilitation, will very largely determine the course that future long-term reconstruction will take.
That brings me to a point which I think is of importance and which should be made to-day. You cannot, in practice, draw a line between the satisfaction of the most urgent human needs of people when


they are liberated, the steps that are to be taken to provide them with raw materials, plant, equipment and so on to enable them to begin their own lives, and the broader plans envisaged in the United Nations' declarations, such as those contained in the Atlantic Charter. We are agreed on principle. There is an extraordinary degree of unanimity in the world. Nations whose histories are even blacker than ours in many fields, have shown what high motives they now possess in their whole-hearted support of the Atlantic Charter. But we are yet far from having concerted plans of action. The Chancellor could not be expected to-day to deal in any detail with the organisation of personnel of U.N.R.R.A., but it is important that we should know. We have been told of two of its leading representatives—the Director-General over there and Sir Frederick Leith Ross in Europe. But are the doctors ready? Have you your specialists for the restoration of the sanitary services? Have you your transport experts? Have you behind the international governmental machine all your executive staffs ready and your advisers, who ought to be advising now, so that when the end of the war comes we shall be able to act quickly?
I have mentioned the I.L.O. Conference. Another is to be held in a few months' time and I hope something more practical will come from it than the statement of principles enunciated 18 months ago. It is true that not such a long time has elapsed since the Hot Springs Conference but we ought to be working hard on the initiation of a long-term programme which must overlap with the rehabilitation programme. The future of Lend-Lease is involved. Clause 7 of that agreement, in my view, could be the most far-reaching economic understanding ever undertaken between any nations, if properly and fully applied.
My anxiety and doubt concern the speed with which we are working in these matters. Some of my friends in the factories were given another sermon yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production, who asked them to work a little harder and dangled before them a picture of a Britain free from war at the end of the year. If that were to happen—and we all hope it may—I would ask, Is this organisation

ready to take over? I realise the part that must be played by the military authorities, so long as any country is potentially a battle area, but once the war is won, once the Allied Governments here go back to their own countries, will they have behind them the personnel and material, with which to make the earliest possible effort to relieve their people of their miseries? It took us about four years to get final Allied direction in the war. That came out of the Teheran Conference. We cannot wait for four years after the end of the war before we get complete Allied action and strategy and the means of operating it. These matters are urgent. It is the general view that when the crack does come in the West it will come quickly. We should be on the way to losing all the things we hope to win from this war if there were any inordinate delay and muddle on the Continent of Europe while people with all hope gone were dying like flies from starvation, as they undoubtedly will, unless prompt measures are taken. That is a situation which nobody in this Committee can contemplate with any equanimity. If that happened we should have been untrue to our friendships, untrue to ourselves and unfaithful to those people on the Continent who have suffered so much.
If I emphasised at the beginning of my speech the part that we took in initiating these plans—in which I had some little part—it was to impress upon the Government that, in taking that responsibility in their hands first, without waiting for the richer nations to come to their assistance, they undertook a responsibility which they can never evade. Nor do I wish, for a moment, to believe that they would desire to evade it. But one feels that there is not developing in Government circles here, and in the international field, that sense of urgency, which is so vital if we are to be prepared for the peace, on a scale infinitely greater than the scale on which we were prepared for war. I should hope, therefore, that we may hear something about how far we are getting concrete and practical plans worked out; whether we are putting our eye on the men and women who can be called upon to carry out the task so as to reassure not only this country but the overrun peoples of Europe, soon to be liberated I hope, that we are working hard and that, when the day of military liberation comes, it will


be the dawn of a newer and fuller liberation.

Captain Bernays: I have one complaint against the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—an unusual one in this House—that it was too short. I should like to hear more of the working of U.N.R.R.A. than he has found it possible to give us at this stage. It is clear from what he said that in U.N.R.R.A. is a vital piece of planning, in which the British Government proposes to play its fullest part. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, on the need for urgency in this matter. The occupied countries are in the position of a man who has undergone a prolonged operation without an anaesthetic. They are torn, bleeding and exhausted and immediate relief will be a matter of the greatest urgency. But it is clear that the plans proposed now are a great advance on anything that was attempted after the last war. There was no Debate of this kind while that war was going on at all. Nothing was done until November, 1918, and then it took three months before any organisation was set up. In 1918 the relief organised was the business of the Big Four—the United States, Great Britain, France and Italy—and now it is to be the common responsibility of all nations.
I think the most important difference of all is that in 1918 the machinery of rationing was scrapped, and now I understand the existing control boards are to be maintained and so extended that they will meet the needs of the war in the Far East and also the needs of the aftermath of war in Europe. U.N.R.R.A., as I understand it, is in no sense in competition with the Control Board. It is, in fact, one of the chief customers of the Control Board. I was delighted to hear from the Chancellor that Mr. Lehman is to be in no sense a member of the United States administration. I think it is very important that it should be made quite clear that the Director-General, the Deputy Director-General and all associated with U.N.R.R.A. are in a real sense international civil servants. The problems that they will have to face are immense. It is not merely a question of transportation and distribution. I believe the most formidable will be that of supply.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked

about doctors and medical supplies. I should like to ask, Have you the food and where is it coming from? Large estimates have been made of the food that will be required, but it must inevitably be to a great extent a matter of guesswork. We cannot possibly know the extent of the scarcity in Europe—it may be exaggerated—and we cannot knout the extent to which the Nazi beast, as he staggers backwards, will destroy stocks and the resources of production, but clearly the demand for food will be very great. Food is the most important of all factors. You can improvise shelter and clothes but there is no substitute for food. I think the ugly fact exists that there are no bulging corn bins in Europe. To-day we are being asked to vote large sums of money, but what is more important is how that money will be spent and how the necessary food will be obtained with that money. Where is it to come from? Our stocks are low. I understand that it was only with considerably difficulty that the Control Board was able to balance the food budget of 1943 and it had to dip extensively into reserves, and it would appear that no great help can come from existing granaries. Nor can any great help come from increased production if the present drain on man power for the Armed Forces, particularly in the Dominions, has to be maintained. The main source of this food would appear to be a continuance of the present restrictions on consumption and, if our rationing system in consequence of U.N.R.R.A. has to be maintained after the war in all its severity, I think the Government should take its courage in both hands and say so at an early date.
This question of the restriction of consumption of food for starving Europe raises political questions, not merely in this country but in America and in the Dominions, of the highest importance. I think it is common ground that British consumption has been reduced to the edge of risk and I do not believe it will be possible to reduce it further without impairing our war effort, and we have to remember that, in addition to the problem of a starving Europe, we shall still have the war in the Far East on our hands at the same time. There is no doubt that a section of our people at any rate are expecting, after the conclusion of hostilities with Germany, an increase of rations. Will they be willing to forgo that increase? I believe that, if the situation is fully explained


to them early they will accept a policy of no increased rations after the war. Great Britain is a generous-minded nation and fully realises that the sacrifices that we have been called upon to make are not a hundredth part of what has been exacted from the slave driven nations. I have been very much impressed by the response of the average man in the Army to the conception that we should not go back to our pre-war consumption until the bulk of Europe had been rescued from its present plight. I believe that the country will cheerfully accept the maintenance of existing standards of consumption, but with three important provisos. Firstly, the present standard of rationing must be maintained only for a limited and a clearly defined period. I believe we should, if possible, give an early hope, say in six months' time after the conclusion of hostilities with Germany, of a substantial increase in rationing.

Miss Rathbone: Is not that rather inconsistent with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said a short time ago as to the enormous suffering of the European countries and the willingness of our people to go on making sacrifices? If they know that the feeding of these liberated countries depends on us, does he suppose that it will enable us to increase our rations in six months?

Captain Bernays: I do not know if it will be six months or nine. It will not be too easy to get this policy across to the country and to commend it to our constituents. There is already a section of the Press agitating for an immediate return to pre-war consumption. We have to face up to this serious political problem, and that is what I am trying to do. It may be six or nine months or a year, but our people should be able to see some end to severities of the existing rationing system. Also I think it must be understood that the food made available by the continuance of our restrictions should be for all Europe. I was very glad to hear the Chancellor emphasise that there was to be no discrimination between the paying and the non-paying countries. Just as in this country food has not followed money, so relief in Europe must not follow dollar balances. I firmly believe that, as far as relief is concerned, there must be no ideological division of Europe

into countries that we like and countries that we do not like. The provision of food must not in any sense be allowed to become a form of political blackmail. All must have equal access to the food that is available.
I would add this, although I know that I am about to advance into a minefield. Our difficulties in securing the acceptance of continued restrictions of consumption in this country would be substantially eased if we could have an assurance that the United States and the Dominions were preparing to make similar sacrifices. We have changed our diet and checked our consumption to an extent that is not comparable with the countries across the Atlantic, and I think the question will be asked whether this disparity of consumption should continue in the months after the war. I have noted one or two speeches of official and unofficial spokesmen in this country and in America suggesting that, in spite of U.N.R.R.A., there will be an immediate return to the standards of pre-war consumption on the conclusion of hostilities. Such a situation whereby we maintained our rationing system in all its severity while America and the Dominions returned to their pre-war levels of consumption would not be easily understood in this country. I think it is right that someone who holds no official position should suggest in all friendliness that the corollary of a policy of pooled resources should be a policy of pooled sacrifices. I believe that the nations composing U.N.R.R.A. have made a fine start. There seems to me a new note to-day in Allied conferences. There seems to be a feeling nowadays that conclusions must be more positive than they have hitherto been and that those conclusions must be followed up by action if the world is to be redeemed from darkness. In that spirit the conference at Atlantic City began its task and the example it has set may well be decisive for the future.

Dr. Haden Guest: I am glad that we are having this Debate at the present time. It is unfortunate, however, that the resolutions passed at the recent conference of U.N.R.R.A. in the United States have been made available to Members of the House only during the last few days. With all the diligence in the world it has not been possible for Members to acquaint themselves fully with


and to digest this formidable document Cmd. 6497. I say this because, while welcoming the Debate, we must take it that this is only a preliminary discussion and that we shall require to explore this matter much further and more fully at a fairly early date. The organisation that is being set up by U.N.R.R.A. and the work to be performed by it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said, while it is not dealing with the economic reconstruction in the world which will be necessary after the war, is at any rate laying the economic foundations for that reconstruction. That is a task of first importance for all people in the world.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to certain considerations with regard to the constitution of U.N.R.R.A. It is governed by the meetings of all its members which are to be held not less than twice a year, but its effective government is in the hands of a council with a central committee, consisting of representatives of China, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., which exercises powers, international in scope, as great as, in some cases perhaps even greater than, those of any individual government. It is, in fact, a body of the very first importance as regards both the power which it wields and its responsibilities. The central committee will be the body which exercises a large part of that power because, according to the document recently published, it will have the power of making policy decisions of an emergency nature. Everyone who has applied his mind to the immediate problems which are certain to arise after the war knows that inevitably a large number of them will be emergency problems. Therefore, it is the central committee which will make the policy decisions. I do not object to that. I think that it is desirable it should be so, but it makes it much more necessary that we should have in this House and in the governing assembly of every constituent country of U.N.R.R.A. a clear conception of the policy which is to guide the administration.
If we cast our minds back, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield did, to the way in which this organisation orginated, we remember that it originated from meetings of the representatives of the United Nations which took place in St. James's Palace in 1941, the first in June

and the second in September of that year, and that these two meetings passed resolutions binding the United Nations to act together. At the second of the meetings the Soviet Union made a declaration of adherence—a matter of great importance. I think that His Majesty's Government might take into consideration the question whether it would not be desirable for them to press now for a third meeting of the representatives of all the United Nations in order to survey the whole field of world policy of which this instrument of U.N.R.R.A. is carrying out one of the sections, but not the only one. We should also be informed in this House, by the issue of a White Paper, how far the work of U.N.R.R.A. has already gone.
Questions have been put in the Debate as to what staff is available. I would remind the House, however, that relief and rehabilitation work has already been carried out in certain countries for some considerable time. There has been such work in the Middle East, Syria and Lebanon, and in North Africa too. It is going on at the present moment in Southern Italy. It is important that we should be able to profit by the experience of these countries. I was informed by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears), who has an important position in the Middle East, that he has been able to arrange in the countries with which he is concerned for an extension of agricultural production on a large scale. In North Africa, I understand, there have been extensive harvests fairly recently and food production in both the Middle East and North Africa has much improved. The situation in Italy is of a different kind. It is of a more serious kind and shows the difficulties with which we shall be faced. There is a country in which our Army and the civil authorities behind the Army are in control. There are, as we know from recent reports, great food difficulties and a raging typhus epidemic which is difficult to control, but which has, fortunately, not spread to the Armed Forces. Although we are in control of that area—and I do not underrate the difficulties of dealing with the civilian population—we have not been able to deal as we could have wished with the food situation. There are serious shortages and a grave typhus epidemic. The situation in Italy is precisely the kind of situation which will arise in other parts of Europe. I therefore suggest that it would be of the


greatest assistance to the House and of value as a matter of general information if we could have a White Paper dealing with the experience of relief up to date, and perhaps embodying the complicated matters and resolutions dealt with in 90 pages of this document Cmd. 6497. This is a document that ought to be understood, and it needs a certain amount of White Paper explanation in order to put a coating on the pill, to use a medical symbol.
No one has mentioned that arrangements have already been made for a considerable recruitment of voluntary staff. I hope that we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman who will reply something of the large number of voluntary societies which are taking part in preparing themselves to undertake work in connection with U.N.R.R.A. as soon as their services are needed. They range from the British Red Cross Society and the Friends' Ambulance Unit to various smaller organisations, but there are a considerable number of organisations and I believe that many people are undergoing training. Perhaps we may hear something about them which will be helpful. While referring to the question of voluntary organisations and volunteer helpers, may I express the hope, which I find it needful to express after trying in an inadequate time to digest this document, that we shall avoid in our policy too much organisation. After the last war we had, in dealing with relief and rehabilitation, perhaps too little organisation. I am rather afraid that after this war we may tie ourselves up in an organisation which is too rigid. I hope that there will be given the opportunity for the voluntary organisations, under proper supervision and after proper selection, to have a rather freer hand than some of the wording of this document suggests.
Another matter of very great importance concerns medical staffs for this work. I do not know where medical staff is to be obtained. At the present moment we could not recruit a very large number of people from this country for medical relief work on the Continent because they are not available, but a very large number of medical staff will be required in connection with the war in the Far East when the war switches from Europe, in all its intensity. There will always be some

shortage of doctors from this country, but there is another way of looking at it. As soon as we have got into occupied Europe, many doctors belonging to the countries there will be available to give us very considerable help and no doubt they will be willing to co-operate. My own experience after the last war of this kind of work in Hungary, Austria, Poland and elsewhere was that doctors and hospital organisations in those countries were very ready to co-operate and gave their very excellent services very freely indeed. I do not think that the doctor difficulty will be insuperable and I believe that we shall be able to control epidemics, but I hope that what is going on in Italy will lead to a little better organisation than apparently exists.
After the provision of food by relief shipments, and the provision of medical, nursing and sanitary staff, the most important thing will be the rehabilitation of agriculture. We shall have to concentrate on the production of cereals. There will not be enough proteins, and fats will be very short. There will definitely be sufficient vitamins for all persons in Europe if proper use is made of the supplies. The situation after this war will therefore not be so serious in this respect as after the last war, when a great deal of suffering was caused by a deficiency of vitamins.
I hope that this Debate will bring from the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply a great flood of light and information on this subject. It seems to me that we shall not get all the light and leading, that we might otherwise have got from the House itself until we have a White Paper digesting the whole subject. It is literally impossible for anyone, however closely in touch with what is going on behind the scenes, to get a complete picture of the work at the present time. We want to know what the requirements in Europe are, in detail, and there is no reason why we should not be told those things, although there was reason some time ago. We want to know who the people are who are to do the work, both in the United States and in this country. The point was raised as to what is to be the status of ex-Governor Lehman, who is to be chief Director. The reply that he is to be an international civil servant is excellent, but he is to be under the authority of a Council which has not met since 1941.
I suggest that it is time that this Council met again, and at such a meeting no doubt the Government of the United States might take the opportunity of making a statement similar to that which was made by the Government of the Soviet Union at the meeting in September, 1941. I suggest that that meeting might take place nearer to the scene of operations than the United States. It might take place in St. James's Palace in London again. I hope that we shall have an assurance about the publication of a White Paper. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say anything about a further conference of representatives of the United Nations, but I know that the matter is very much in the hearts and minds of many people most closely associated with this work, in order that such a conference might give a lead to the world and reconcile people to sacrifices, with regard to rations and in other ways, which I believe they will have to undertake. They will take it better and more easily from a great international pronouncement than from a statement issued in this country, however great the authority may be. If the statement is made on behalf of the United Nations, the whole world will know that it has been considered by a World Council whose recommendations will probably have more effect than anything we can say in this Committee.

Mr. Palmer: I am glad that the last speaker drew attention to the need for making people realise the responsibilities and the sacrifices which will have to be undertaken after the war. I welcome this Debate because it is one occasion for helping in that direction. To-day we are getting our first taste of this practical task, which will have to be undertaken, not only in Europe, but, later, in the Far East as well. It is not merely a question of voting some £80,000,000, but also of recognising that we are undertaking specific responsibilities abroad of a kind of which we have not thought very much so far in this country, being preoccupied with the war and with questions of domestic reconstruction. In his opening speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us something of the work of U.N.R.R.A. and its intermediate position, which I understand it occupies, between military operations on the one hand and long-term reconstruction on the other. I have no doubt that it is very difficult to draw any but a

rather wavy line on either side of its functions, but because of that fact it is important to try to define its scope and its relation to military operations on the one side and to long-term reconstruction on the other.
The Report, on the length of which the hon. Member has just commented, is a very impressive and comprehensive document, and it lays down several principles for relief and rehabilitation which will commend themselves universally to this Committee. As I understand it, U.N.R.R.A. cannot go into operation in any foreign territory after this has been liberated except by the consent, either of the military commander, or, as the case may be, of some recognised national authority. No doubt, as different countries are liberated, they will have different attitudes towards the scope and the nature of any relief they may require through the agency of U.N.R.R.A. In the event of any national authority, the recognised national authority, inviting the assistance of U.N.R.R.A. it is laid down as being desirable, I am glad to note, that the national authority, or Government, should, itself, as far as possible, be responsible for distributing the relief. Two important conditions are laid down in respect to that matter, and I am sure we wish to underline them very much. The first is that any supplies shall be granted, only on condition that efficient measures of price control and rationing are maintained, in the country concerned. The second is that there shall be no question of discrimination of grounds of race, creed, or political party, in the distribution of supplies. I am sure that this Committee will do well to endorse those two principles. I will go a step further. In the case where a national authority, or Government, is the distributing agency, any supplies which come from U.N.R.R.A. should be safeguarded as to their distribution so as to make it absolutely certain that those two vital principles are not violated.
I would like to add one or two other principles as well, as worthy to be considered in this respect. We have here 44 nations making an experiment in practical co-operation. Theirs is a strictly practical job, but it can be wrecked, if political questions or issues creep in. I trust that everything possible will be done to avoid such a calamity. I welcome the suggestions made in the Report for recruitment


and training—I hope early recruitment and rapid training—of a really high quality international Civil Service, as part of their machinery.
Now I come to the question of cost. I have no doubt that the people of this country will be most anxious to vote the £80,000,000 required, but it is not merely a question of money but also of supplies and manpower. When one of my hon. and gallant Friends talked about food, he mentioned only one aspect of the various shortages with which we shall later be faced and which any relief given under U.N.R.R.A. can only accentuate. I have no doubt that the most generous support will be given to all measures proposed for these purposes, on this condition, that the House and the country are convinced that they are administered with true economy, by which I do not mean cheese-paring or grudging, but getting the maximum possible return for all money, supplies and personnel devoted to these purposes. Obviously, there are grave limitations. Supplies and shipping will be short, because we expect still to be pursuing the major war in the Far East at the time when we are undertaking this relief work in Europe. Great demands will be made for skilled and high-quality man-power in this work, and no doubt those demands will have to be pressed against the demand for such people in many other walks of life, either in the Services or in civilian employment related to the war effort. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that U.N.R.R.A. will have sufficient influence to acquire, not large quantities of personnel but sufficient quantities of the highly-skilled personnel, who will be required, whether in the field of welfare, relief, health, or agriculture, or whatever it may be.
I was very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer underlined that U.N.R.R.A.'s position is that of helping other people to help themselves. That was very well expressed as one of the principles underlying U.N.R.R.A. in the Report itself, where it says that the relief service
should be designed to help people to help themselves.
This applies not merely to welfare services but to others which are in view.

Within the limits of supplies and manpower and so forth, we want to ensure, as far as we possibly can—I am sure that other nations think the same in this respect—that the arrival of the United Nations in countries at present occupied will really mean lifting a curse from the shoulders of the peoples concerned. We want them to feel that the difference is a real thing; but I want to emphasise and underline that I think it would be fatal in the long run, either to raise false hopes, hopes higher than are justified by the supplies and the personnel available, or to press on unwilling publics, offers of assistance in forms which they do not require. The key to all this, to economy, to getting things right and understood, to getting results, is careful advanced planning and organisation. This has to be, I suppose, as highly developed as if we were planning a major military operation.
There seem to me to be three aspects of this planning. You have to determine the needs as far as you can estimate them, you have to determine how far you can meet those needs and in what order of priorities, and you have to set up the most efficient organisation to administer the whole thing. As far as needs are concerned, a great deal of work and examination have to be done in many different directions, country by country. You have to try to determine, as far as you can, what stocks of food or consumption goods are available, what raw materials, what industrial plant for making relief goods, what is the condition of agriculture, what transport is available for relief purposes, what is the state of health as regards deficiency diseases, epidemics and so on. There is the question of population transfers and their distribution in Germany and elsewhere. You may have to make some estimate of requirements of administrative personnel for local government. For it may be that in some territories the Germans, as part of their scorched earth policy, will take the local administrators of towns and villages with them and we may have to improvise something to replace them. You have to study the existing system of German controls in occupied territories, because, if they are suddenly removed and you do not understand what has been going on previously you may easily get into difficulties.
I believe that a great deal of the very big undertaking of obtaining information as to future needs and demands has been done over a period by the Inter-Allied Committee. I believe that Committee has worked admirably and is keeping its estimates up to date and is showing a real spirit of co-operation as between its members in relation to these questions. I am sure that that spirit of co-operation which has been shown in the Inter-Allied Committee over this period will be carried forward into the work of U.N.R.R.A. itself. On the other side, there is the question of procurements and distribution, I was very glad indeed that the Chancellor underlined the necessity for getting estimates for overall requirements for relief work and putting them up to the responsible inter-Governmental agencies which are concerned. That is the only possible principle by which you can get a fair distribution as between the different countries concerned, whether they are capable of paying for supplies or not. Otherwise, you will get what the Chancellor described as a scramble for supplies and inflation of prices. It is only by adequate preliminary work of the kind I have described, that these overall requirements can be procured from the agencies concerned.
As regards distribution, the Report does make detailed proposals over the whole field. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Conference on the very valuable feat performed in procuring such a Report, which appears to have thought of practically everything? Quite clearly the Conference was concerned to avoid the delays and ineffectiveness which took place in 1918 and 1919 and I think that we must all be very glad that my right hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) is to play such a prominent part in this organisation. It so happens, as I have no doubt hon. Members know, that he wrote an interesting book after the last war on Allied shipping control and described the successive stages leading to delay in 1918 and early 1919. In that book, referring to the Supreme Economic Council which was finally set up in February, 1919, he says:
This Council, restricted to one not clearly separable part of the many economic problems facing the Allies, without the assistance of a staff accustomed to work together and without either the uniting force of the war or the tradition

of actual action which that force had given to the war organisations, proved ineffective.
That was the third shot at getting an organisation. U.N.R.R.A. is an attempt to avoid these pitfalls, but I should like to feel certain in my mind that now this organisation is in process of being set up, in accordance with the principles and aims laid down in the Report, it is to have, a sufficient status with Government Departments and with inter-Governmental agencies, that it is to have sufficient leverage, as it were, with the bodies who will be concerned to assist it, really to play the effective part we all hope it is going to play.
I do not want to go over the whole field of the proposals laid down in the Report. That would take a very long time. But there is one aspect of them to which I would like to draw attention. That is the question of the repatriation of displaced persons. Attention has been drawn to the question of food, as being the most difficult and most important. One does not want to enter into competition with other people on what is the most important thing, but no one can possibly regard this question of the repatriation of displaced persons without something of the apprehension and anxiety about the the nature of the problem, which is displayed in the pages of the Report itself. The Report draws attention to three main types of danger: the possibility of uncontrolled and uncontrollable mass movements, the possibility of epidemics not only in Germany but amongst persons as they are in transit through other countries to their homes, and finally bringing epidemics back home with them.
Then there are the dangers that political issues, political party feelings, may obstruct or make more difficult repatriation of the kind we would like to see. Now the responsibility of U.N.R.R.A. for this question of displaced persons as far as I understand the Report is limited to their repatriation and relief. It refuses to take any responsibility for their future employment. I think I am right in my interpretation of the Report. I appreciate that U.N.R.R.A. must restrict the scope of its activities in this respect but one is bound to ask oneself how U.N.R.R.A. can do an effective job in relation to displaced persons unless it is in the closest possible contact with those persons who will be responsible for employment and long term


reconstruction. After all, what has happened to Europe's economy during the war? It has been completely subservient to the aim of feeding the German war machine. It is not merely a question of having to transfer populations, of there being taxes and levies and confiscations on a large scale; but a large part of the industrial and agricultural production of Europe has been sold to a single consumer, Germany at war, and that single consumer, Germany at war, will disappear overnight quite suddenly. Obviously, you cannot unwind the European economy in a moment, but if it is not taken in hand speedily, it will inevitably collapse into chaos, so that U.N.R.R.A. must, inevitably, have the closest possible relations with those authorities, whether they are national authorities or international authorities, who are responsible for planning long-term reconstruction and carrying them out in the shape of practical policy.
One word about relief in ex-enemy territories, and, of course, more particularly in Germany. No doubt this is a subject which will arouse violent antagonism, more particularly if supplies to Germany mean greater shortages over here or in occupied territories. That is a perfectly intelligible and natural point of view. I do not approach this question with any idea of being kind to the German people. I think we should approach it solely from the standpoint of the conditions which will have to be enjoyed by the armies of occupation. That is to say it does not seem to me that we can possibly ask the armies of occupation to live in a country which is ridden with famine, disease and anarchy. I would quote a sentence from Doctor Temperley's history of the Peace Conference. Referring to 1919 he says:
It may safely be said that it was largely owing to the efforts of the British military authorities and the excellent information they possessed as to the real state of Germany, that food was sent into Germany as early as April (1919)—probably just in time to save the country from anarchy and possibly Europe from a serious catastrophe.
It was the British military authorities who assisted last time. I want to be sure that we bear this danger in mind this time. Commonsense would surely forbid us to allow motives of revenge, however intelligible, to add to our already very great difficulties.
May I say one thing about the organisation of U.N.R.R.A.? The organisation, as shown in the Report, is very impressive and very comprehensive. It must be exceedingly difficult to translate the desires and policies of 44 nations into a practical, working machine. The actual machine itself consists of a Council, a Central Committee and some ten Committees and sub-Committees in addition. If that organisation is not to be unwieldy, and I daresay it is not possible to reduce it further, the key obviously lies with the powers enjoyed by the Central Committee, who can take much quicker decisions than the Council, and the Director-General and his staff.
The powers are important, but it seems to me that almost more important is the manner in which those powers are exercised. I compared this organisation with the preparation for a military operation, but it is more than that. You must have among those persons the qualities not merely for conducting a military operation but also for handling all sorts of persons. I am sure the House welcomes the good start which has been made in setting up this organisation. No doubt, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are now in the throes of translating the aims and the principles into a practical working machine. This is a great task, and I am sure the House will wish them well in its performance.

Mr. Horabin: I found myself in full agreement with the emphasis which a previous speaker placed upon the importance of food in relation to relief. Not long ago the Minister of Reconstruction told us that we should be faced after this war with a world shortage of food. As I see it, one of the principal objects of U.N.R.R.A. must be to spread that deficiency as thinly as possible over the whole world and not to allow any particular peoples or races to suffer. That must be their function until agricultural production once more gets into its stride. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend talk about the shocking muddle which arose in 1918. It gives me great satisfaction to realise that U.N.R.R.A. is planning to prevent Europe and the other liberated territories, as one of our leading economists at that time put it, "starving and disintegrating before, our eyes." Here, at least, we have, I think, learnt one of the lessons of the


last war. The Versailles Treaty contained no provision whatever for the economic rehabilitation of Europe. Yet here today U.N.R.R.A. is setting to work, before final victory, to plan the organisation that is necessary for relief and rehabilitation. At the Atlantic City Conference the United Nations faced fairly and squarely the vital issues of relief, and to a large extent the vital issues of rehabilitation. They set up the machinery for carrying out that work, and for allocating the financial and material burdens. Also they have agreed, at any rate, upon the basic principles of distribution. I certainly welcome, as I am sure my hon. Friends do, the statement which was made in more than one of the resolutions that relief would not be used as a political weapon. We welcome, too, the fact that there is to be no discrimination in distribution on account of race, creed or political beliefs. That to us is fundamental. But if this fundamental principle is to be carried out, U.N.R.R.A. must put into each of the territories, as it is liberated, a representative of strong character and integrity.
There seems to me to be in the Resolutions rather an over-emphasis on national sovereignty and the authority of the Government in each of the liberated areas within its own territory. I think it is too much to hope that none of these Governments will want to discriminate against defenceless sections of the populations who again come under their control. In this insistence upon national sovereignty, the United Nations have unfortunately failed to learn one of the lessons of the last war. Let me give an example. If relief is to be carried out, as envisaged by the United Nations, through U.N.R.R.A., tremendous supplies will have to be transported here and there throughout Europe, through territories under different national sovereignties. Those tremendous supplies will not be transported efficiently and effectively unless steps are taken to bring the European transport system under a unified control. We all know what happened after the last war, as a result of the fact that transport in Europe was not under unified control. It led to great delays in certain territories. As a result of the way the United Nations have faced up to this question, before we have achieved final victory, there is still time to put this right, and I hope that the British Government will set an example in trying to get

the Governments of these territories at present occupied, to work out a more co-operative and unified economic system for Europe.
I now turn to a point which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer). One of the greatest defects in the policies reached at Atlantic City related to treatment of enemy territory. The fundamental defect of the Treaty of Versailles, I think, was that Germany was not only subjected, quite rightly, to the strongest possible military discipline, but also to impossible economic disabilities. That was a disaster to the German people. I think it was an even greater disaster to the people of Europe and ourselves. It was, in fact, a great disaster for the whole world. If I remember rightly, our leaders in this country in the early stages of the war made it clear that while they were determined to impose on the German nation at the end of this war the strongest military disabilities, in the words of the Leader of the House, the economic conditions imposed would be such as to give the Germans a chance to live. From the information in my possession—and I hope it is right—the British Government sought to carry out that policy at Atlantic City. They proposed that enemy territories should pay for relief to the fullest extent possible. That, in my view, was a wise and statesmanlike proposal, and it is to be regretted that the Conference decided otherwise: that enemy territories should pay in full. That means, as I understand it, that, however restricted their resources may be, they must pay in full.
I feel that on this vital point the Atlantic City Conference departed from the very wise principle laid down in some of the earlier resolutions, that the scale of relief should be dictated by need. I suggest that in our own interests and in the interests of the people of Europe, quite apart from the German people, and, indeed, in the interest of all the peoples throughout the world, that principle should apply to enemy territories as well. I hope that the hatreds and the unreason which are always bred of war are not once again going to lead the nations of Europe into actions which will sow the seeds of the next war. So far no irretrievable step has been taken, but this decision to make enemy territories pay in full for their relief is a step in the wrong direction. I hope that the British


Government will point out to these Governments of liberated Europe that the German people will not be able to restore all loot, to pay for the war in full and at the same time to have their industries restricted. That way lies disaster.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also made it clear that the functions of U.N.R.R.A. were limited to the relief and rehabilitation that are necessary to prevent starvation and disease in Europe immediately after the war. Its job is not to reconstruct either Europe or the world. Nevertheless, its task is a vital prerequisite to the work of reconstruction. I hope that the Governments of the United Nations, led by the British Government, are paying attention to those far greater tasks that will face us when the period of reconstruction comes. At the Hot Springs Conference and in the organisation that sprang out of it they have made a very valuable contribution to the big task of reconstruction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to this House to support the Government to the full in this great task. If the Government set out to perform the tasks of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction with energy and drive, they will, I am sure, have the full support of every single one of us.

Mr. G. Strauss: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) has expressed views with which I am so much in agreement, and has done so so ably, that he has relieved me of the necessity of making one or two points that I had in mind, which, doubtless, will be a relief to this Committee. But there are one or two things that I want to say about U.N.R.R.A. Every hon. Member, and everybody with any political mind in the country, is, I think, delighted with the steps which have been taken in bringing about this Conference in the United States, and is grateful for the tremendous amount of work done in order to produce the results which are shown in the White Paper that we have before us. I would like to thank the Ministers responsible for producing in such extended form a report of the resolutions which were passed at that Conference, thereby putting us in possession of so much vital information. It is clear that the duties and responsibilities of the U.N.R.R.A. will be enormous. Its task will be infinitely greater than anything which faced any

relief organisation at the end of the last war. It will require a tremendous organisation, great imagination, and a large, first-class body of personnel, and it will have to conduct its work in such a way as to earn the respect both of the liberated nations and the supplying nations.
Its work will be extremely important, not only because of the immediate relief which U.N.R.R.A. will bring to millions of people in Europe, but because on the success of U.N.R.R.A. will, in my view, largely depend the success of the United Nations in establishing a contented and prosperous Europe on a permanent basis. There will be widespread hatred and bitterness throughout Europe when the war is over, and if for months after the hour of liberation the people of Europe feel that they are not receiving adequate relief to their physical sufferings it will be very difficult to establish in their minds confidence in the good will of the United Nations, and a final peace settlement based on good will will be infinitely more difficult. The situation in Europe to-day, in regard to food and many other things, is extraordinarily bad, and we must envisage the fact that when the war is over it is likely to be infinitely worse. There will be the disintegration of the central authority in Germany, enormous devastation, and the disruption of railway transport on a far greater scale than exists to-day. The task, therefore, will be a colossal one.
Some calculations have already been made as to the amount of food which will be required by the peoples of Europe during the first six months after the war. The Inter-Allied Post-War Requirements Committee, after a most careful survey, said that the minimum requirements, without building up any stocks whatsoever, will be 45,855,000 tons of food, seeds, fuel, clothing and other raw materials, and that in order to transport these necessary goods, 23,500,000 tons of shipping will be needed. The provision of such shipping and the provision of these materials and the organisation required are going to be stupendous, and that takes no account whatever of the shipping that will be required for the war in the Far East or for the transport of troops, or for bringing our Service men back to this country.
It is quite abvious that if this work is to be carried out with any success, and if it is to achieve anything worth while, there is bound to be a continuation of rationing in some form or other in this country when the war is over, and, on top of that, U.N.R.R.A. will have to deal with the enormous problem of refugees scattered throughout Europe. Because of the importance of its task and the degree to which its success will affect the final reconstruction of Europe it is our duty to consider its organisation, its personnel and its Resolutions with very great care. The Resolutions, which are set out in the White Paper, are, in my view, admirable ones. They express admirable sentiments, and they are couched in admirable language.
There are, however, some aspects of the organisation, as set out in the White Paper and its declarations, which give me cause for some anxiety and which, I think, must be watched. One is the extent of the rehabilitation envisaged in the Resolutions which, to my mind, limits the actions of U.N.R.R.A. to an undesirable degree. It is perfectly true, as everybody has said, that U.N.R.R.A. cannot be the instrument by which Europe is to be reconstructed. But, nevertheless, it is the instrument which is going to produce not only the necessary food and shelter, but will see that the transport system is functioning properly, that agriculture gets going again, that seeds are provided, and that the public utilities are in operation. It is quite impossible to separate the work to be done by U.N.R.R.A. in the matter of rehabilitation and setting life going again from the first steps of reconstruction.
Resolution 12, paragraph 11, states that the task of rehabilitation must not be considered as the beginning of reconstruction, for "it is co-terminous with relief." It really all depends on how that principle is carried out in practice. It may be all right, or it may not, but I fear that there may be pressure from certain quarters to curtail the rehabilitation activities of U.N.R.R.A. unnecessarily. That would be a very great pity indeed, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will encourage U.N.R.R.A. to do what it can to set the peoples of Europe on their feet again.
There is the serious problem, which was dealt with at some length by hon.

Members, and which I do not want to go over again, in regard to the provision that enemy or ex-enemy countries should have to pay to the full for the ministration of relief in their areas. I do not know how that will be interpreted. In connection with the payment for goods provided under U.N.R.R.A. in the countries where it may operate, I want to put this point. The success of this scheme, which envisages that the goods to be provided will not be given to the populations, but will be sold to them, depends very much indeed on the wisdom of the United Nations in fixing proper rates of exchange in the countries where U.N.R.R.A. will operate. We have had the experience of Italy, where a rate of exchange was fixed which very many people, maybe most people, felt to be far too high, with the result that the Italian currency was devalued to an extent which was quite out of keeping with the relevant standards. There has been inflation in Italy, and the goods which have been provided for the Italians under A.M.G.O.T., instead of being sold, as they well might have been, have had, in fact, almost to be given away by this country and the United States, which is a ridiculous situation. I would emphasise that if the provision of goods under U.N.R.R.A. on a paid basis is to be carried out, every care will have to be taken to see that the rates of exchange are properly fixed.
There are two more points which I want to make in this connection. Although the operations of U.N.R.R.A. are nominally in the hands of the Council of U.N.R.R.A. representing 44 associated nations, in point of fact control remains very largely in the hands of the combined Boards, which are under the control of this country, the United States and, to some extent, Canada. It is those Boards which will have to provide the material and any nation which requires relief may by-pass the Council of U.N.R.R.A. and approach these combined Boards direct. Whatever the view of the Director of U.N.R.R.A. may be, these combined Boards under Anglo-American control can be approached direct to provide food or other materials required, and there is nothing to stop those Boards supplying goods, whatever the views of the Director-General may be. That set-up seems to me to be wholly undesirable.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I would like to make it clear to the hon. Member that that is not quite the position. The provision is made that the combined Boards, before making any allocation, shall receive the Director-General's comments on what the countries concerned are to pay. Those Boards are working under the instructions of the United States Government and our own, and, of course, the policy is that because a country can pay it is not going to get preference over a country that cannot pay. The Director-General is not, in fact, going to be by-passed.

Mr. Strauss: I am very glad to hear that, for, as it is set out in the document, while the combined Boards apply to the Director-General for his comments they are not bound to accept them, and they could, if they wanted to, ignore his comments. But if we are definitely told that the combined Boards will, in point of fact, accept his comments, then my point is fully met. I am very glad to hear that declaration from the right hon. Gentleman. My last point is this, and it is a very serious one. Comment has been made by previous speakers that one of the important things about U.N.R.R.A. is that there will be no political discrimination and, indeed, the Resolutions do say quite clearly that there will be no political discrimination whatsoever. Resolution 7 says:
Relief and rehabilitation shall at no time be used as a political weapon, and no discrimination shall be made because of caste, creed or belief.
But, nevertheless, there is, in fact, ample opportunity for such discrimination. Relief could be entirely refused in areas under the control of administrators who are not approved by the Governments represented on the Council. That, in my view, is a danger which we shall have to watch very carefully indeed. We all remember the experiences at the end of the last war, when the provision of food was used as a most effective political weapon by the victors. Indeed, there is no weapon more effective. The organisation or government which is in charge of the food waiting to be distributed to millions of starving people in a particular area is in an all-powerful position and can effect such political pressure as it desires. At the end of the last war relief was used most definitely as a political weapon and, in my

view, wholly harmfully. We must be perfectly certain that that does not happen again.
May I show how, in the scheme as drawn up, with all the safeguards and the good intentions of everybody involved, discrimination would be perfectly possible? To start with, U.N.R.R.A. can only operate with the permission of the military commander in a certain area. There may be an area in, shall we say, a Balkan country, where a popular Left Government are in virtual control of the administration, but where the situation may not be entirely stable. Such a popular Left Government may be anxious to establish their authority and able to do so as soon as the country is settled and if there is food available for the people in the area. It may be that the military commander, responsible to the Government which employ him may declare that the country is not settled enough for U.N.R.R.A. to operate and therefore no relief can go to that country. By denying U.N.R.R.A. the opportunity to operate in such an area the military commander, acting may be on behalf of his Government, could, if he wanted to, use the political weapon of food relief to upset a popular Government. I am not suggesting that that is going to happen, but it did happen at the end of the last war, and we must be certain it is not going to happen again.
What I am trying to point out is that, in spite of the Resolutions passed by the Council of U.N.R.R.A., the scheme is such that a position as outlined above might happen in one or two instances. I can give other examples. The Resolutions lay it down that the administration of relief must go through the local authorities, which I think everyone will agree is perfectly correct, but there may be more than one local authority. There may be some local authorities who owe their allegiance to a refugee Government. It may be a reactionary refugee Government. There may be rival local authorities which have been set up by irredentist movements in the local population and which would probably be, under the circumstances, revolutionary organisations. There may be two local authorities through whom relief should be administered. Somebody has got to decide which one will administer the relief and divide up the food, and, in point of fact, be the


organisation which will be in virtual control of the area. The Government, or U.N.R.R.A., could show discrimination in that matter in deciding which local authority shall be the appointed agent, thus exercising very powerful political control. I may have a "bee in my bonnet" about the danger of relief being used as a political weapon, but I believe it is a really serious danger. It is such an easy weapon to use, because it does not involve armed force. It may be that it would not raise Questions in the House or popular feeling in the country, because nobody would know much about it. It is a mean weapon to use. It is an all powerful weapon to use amongst these people—the distribution of relief in a time of great starvation, shortage and misery—and those using it could, if they wanted to, exercise decisive political control in any area in Europe where they happened to be.
I would much rather have seen the relief organisation set up and run by an authority not responsible to Government at all. I would have preferred to have some organisation such as the Red Cross, shall we say, responsible for this work, but this is not practical politics. The work is going to be done by the Government, and therefore I suggest that it is our responsibility, in the first place, to see that it is efficiently run and, secondly, that this Government plays no part in using this organisation of relief to the starving people of Europe as a political weapon in order to establish Governments in Europe of the political direction which they may desire. I am sure the House of Commons will play its full part in supporting U.N.R.R.A. and in providing the money necessary to make it the efficient organisation which we all want it to be, because there is no doubt at all that the shape and temper of Europe in the future will, to a considerable degree, depend on the speed and efficiency and impartiality with which U.N.R.R.A. will conduct its operations.

Mr. Boothby: I am sure that members of the Committee on all sides will agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that nobody wants to see U.N.R.R.A. made into an instrument of political policy; and I am quite sure that we shall have a satisfactory assurance from the Government on that score. The object of U.N.R.R.A., as the Chancellor pointed out in his very lucid

opening speech to-day, is to help the countries of Europe to help themselves; and I do not think we shall discriminate between countries from the political point of view. The Chancellor has proposed a large sum of money. £80,000,000, even in these days, is not to be sneezed at. I think the policy we are now asked to embark upon will have wide and deep effects on our general economic policy. There is one specific point on which I would like to ask for an assurance. I hope the precedent of A.M.G.O.T. will not be followed with regard to the appointment of officers, and that they will not be recruited on a specific medical standard of health, or required to be military officers. I hope we shall draw on the best civil advice available, wherever we can get it, and not rely on a purely military organisation. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman what valuable and experienced people we have had in India, some of whom may be in this country, with tremendous experience in such matters as famine relief. I feel there may be, perhaps, a pool of retired civil servants from which we could draw to the advantage of this country and U.N.R.R.A.
That being said, I think it should be pointed out that U.N.R.R.A., though it is of vital importance, is not, necessarily, going to be very popular. On the one hand, the Americans suspect that it may be turned into an enormous European Public Works Policy, financed by them. On the other hand, the Russians fear that it may be used as a political instrument to secure the business interests of this country and the United States. Equally, I do not know that the word relief will sound very pleasantly in the ears of many European Governments. Nobody likes to be relieved if they can possibly help it. So I think we shall be under an illusion if we think that U.N.R.R.A. is going to be universally acclaimed as a kind of universal aunt by all the nations of Europe, with the full approval of the United States and Russia. Essentially, this U.N.R.R.A. is a Red Cross policy, designed to meet a particular emergency, and I think it must therefore be of a limited and temporary character. One of the leading Soviet newspapers the other days said:
The widening of the framework of the activities of U.N.R.R.A. can only result in failure of its work.
I therefore think we must recognise that


U.N.R.R.A. by itself has a limited purpose.
There is a saying in a well-known cookery book, "First catch your hare." I am sure the Minister of Food will agree that, if we are going to administer U.N.R.R.A. successfully, we must remember that we cannot feed starving populations on paper currency, or even on gold; and I hope we shall hear to-morrow of some of the steps that are being taken by the Government to grow the food and catch the fish which will be required in order to feed the starving populations of Europe The second thing to realise is that U.N.R.R.A. cannot possibly stand alone as the sole contribution of the United States to the economic rehabilitation of liberated Europe—even in the middle of war, and certainly not in the first phase after the war. Like patriotism, U.N.R.R.A. is not enough. It cannot, in my submission, be separated from commercial policy or long term development. On the contrary, it must be related to these if it is to survive itself for more than the briefest period, and if it is to do any lasting good. In short, you cannot disassociate U.N.R.R.A. from the general economic policy of the United Nations; for if you try to do so it will be ineffective and meaningless. In my submission, U.N.R.R.A. should be fitted in as an integral part of the general international economic policy of the United Nations. Do not let us forget that the German New Economic Order for Europe, deplorable as we may think it, is well known in Europe. What is our general economic policy for Europe? We do not know; but we want to know, and I think Europe wants to know. All we have been told to date is that discussions have been going on with the United States about currency, and that we are to provide the measure of relief now proposed by the Chancellor. So far as currency is concerned, we have not been very successful up to date because there is common agreement that the sterling-lira rate was wrongly fixed. I believe there has been immense hoarding in the South of Italy as the result of this sterling-lira rate; and I believe it has cost the taxpayers of this country more than it should have done, because we have had to export a good deal of food to feed the people of southern Italy, which should be a self-supporting country. Inflation

always induces hoarding. The Government will at any rate agree with me that this problem of the rate at which the sterling exchange should be fixed, in relation to the currencies of the countries that are liberated, should be very carefully watched; and that we should never hesitate to alter the rate should it appear to be necessary, in the light of experience.
I think it is, in some ways, unfortunate that this problem of international economic recovery, and particularly the rehabilitation of Europe, should have been tackled primarily and in the first instance by way of relief, and from the standpoint of currency; because I do not believe we shall ever get very far down that road. We tried it in 1933 and came to sad grief. Why? Because currency stabilisation can only be achieved on the basis of a durable peace, an expansionist economic policy deliberately pursued by the leading industrial countries, a sound commercial policy, and a constructive international investment policy. We are not yet in sight of any of these. It would, in my view, be folly to dish out money from U.N.R.R.A. to the countries of Europe, and at the same time to saddle them with incalculable debts to some international fund, whatever the terms in which these debts are expressed. Nevertheless, I am sure the Minister will agree that we have got to take immediate and vigorous action along more than one line to revive economic life and stimulate commercial activity, not only in Europe but in the world; and that we ought to be thinking about the action we are going to take now. This will involve something more than mere relief. It involves a Plan.
I want to suggest to the Committee that it is not going to be easy to plan any efficient or effective machinery in order to revive Europe, or indeed the world, unless the major countries which participate in that plan are agreed about the pursuit of an internal policy of economic expansion. By that I mean, quite simply, that, as long as human needs remain unsatisfied, the solution of the economic problem should be sought by expanding demand rather than by contracting supply; by clothing these human needs with effective demand in the form of adequate purchasing power. This is fundamental, and I think we ought to be talking about it now. By itself,


U.N.R.R.A., merely by spending a certain limited quantity of money, cannot possibly hope to fill the bill; and, unless it is succeeded by, or rather developed into, an international scheme for long-term investment in countries which stand in need of reconstruction or development or rehabilitation, it will bring no more than a momentary alleviation of actual suffering and want. It will not touch the real problem of world recovery.
I want now to say a word on the subject of machinery. I hope, and I think that hope is shared in many parts of the House, that U.N.R.R.A. will develop before long into a Supreme Economic Council of the United Nations to co-ordinate the activities of the various authorities which will have to be set up to meet the emergency situations which will successively arise after the war; or rather that a Supreme Economic Council will be superimposed upon it. Because I believe the worst mistake that we made after the last war was to abolish the Supreme Economic Council in Paris, and substitute for it a purely political League of Nations.
I believe that under this Supreme Economic Council three authorities are absolutely essential at the very start: first of all the U.N.R.R.A. organisation itself, for an immediate red-cross policy of relief for the stricken nations of Europe; secondly, an International Investment Board for long-term reconstruction in countries devastated by the war, and also for the development of backward countries; and thirdly, an international Commodity Board of the kind envisaged by my right hon. Friend at the Hot Springs Conference. Without this last, I cannot see how U.N.R.R.A. itself can hope to discharge its function, which is not in the end going to be the dishing out of paper pounds or even of gold, but the provision of food and raw materials for the suffering peoples of Europe. The job of an International Commodity Board, which I should hope would very soon be set up under the auspices of a Supreme Council, should be threefold: first of all, to stimulate production by long-term bulk purchases, which is the only way to stimulate production; secondly, to store and distribute certain basic raw materials; and thirdly, to act as a buffer in the commodity markets, with the object of stabilising world commodity prices. Until these various authorities are established and

functioning successfully, it is waste of time even to think of anything in the nature of a multilateral clearing union.
It is necessary now to distinguish very sharply between the immediate activities of U.N.R.R.A., which comprise short-term relief; trade, which is the mutually advantageous exchange of goods between various countries; and development, which involves the long-term utilisation by the devastated, backward or deficit countries of the world of the cumulative surpluses of the creditor countries. Do not let us over lose sight of the fact that the essential character of trade—and it is upon the revival of trade that the recovery of Europe ultimately depends—is an act of barter; and I do not see why we should be afraid of that word.
You cannot blow up the world twice in a generation, and with it an economic system which has prevailed for a century, and then expect to go on exactly where you left off. You have to start again right from the beginning, and rebuild your world economy on sound principles and foundations, which will meet the requirements of a new era. It is no use shirking the difficulties merely by pretending they do not exist. Let us begin at the beginning, and the first thing of all is relief. The next step is, I believe, bilateral agreements; which, in turn, would gradually be expanded into regional economic organisations. These bilateral agreements will take the form of arrangements between specific countries to take payment for their respective exports in one another's currency; supplemented by long-term purchase contracts in respect of certain basic commodities. With our great internal market in this country, we are in a strong position to negotiate them; but they will involve both exchange control, and control over imports.
The next thing would be the extension of these bilateral agreements into regional agreements, involving multilateral trade between various groups of countries. I hope—and this definitely concerns U.N.R.R.A.—that not only in respect of our own Empire, but also in respect of Western Europe, where our prestige will be high after the war is over, and where our financial services and experience will he required, we shall seek by every means in our power to develop these regional economic units. The United States of America and the U.S.S.R. are bound, in


any event, to pursue a policy of economic regionalism. You cannot avoid this. It is logical, reasonable and desirable that we should do the same, in the company of those countries with economic objectives similar to our own. At all costs we must not go back to the system which prevailed before the war, under which every country sought to increase its export surplus at the expense of its neighbours—in other words, to export its own unemployment.
Bilateral trade is the only answer to international illiquidity. International illiquidity before the war was caused mainly by the refusal of the world's greatest creditor nation to accept payment for its current surpluses in any other token than gold, or to relend them to the deficit nations. We are going to co-operate with the United States on the Council of U.N.R.R.A.; but we have no assurance at all that the United States will alter its fundamental economic policy in this respect. In these circumstances, we should be mad to tie ourselves up in any rigid world currency scheme.
In conclusion, may I make an urgent plea to His Majesty's Government to concentrate upon functional economic organisation after the war? In that respect we can all welcome U.N.R.R.A. It is an excellent example, and a very good start. It leaves the essentials of national sovereignty untouched. An hon. Member behind spoke about national sovereignty in very disparaging terms. Whatever theoretical views we may hold about national sovereignty, I believe we are not going to get rid of it as easily as all that. Whatever our own views as a nation may be, the views of other countries, including the Soviet Union and the United States, may be very different; and they will, I think, be very reluctant to deprive themselves of national sovereignty, especially in the political sphere. The greatest advantage of U.N.R.R.A. is that it leaves that aspect of national sovereignty untouched. It also avoids those elaborate paper constitutions and declarations which proved such a snare and a delusion during the inter-war period, and particularly when the covenant of the League of Nations was drafted. It tackles at least one of the post-war economic problems as a practical issue in a practical way. Modern

productive capacity imposes its own limitations. If we let it get out of hand, it can bring chaos. It must therefore be controlled. What is our ultimate goal? What is the ultimate goal of U.N.R.R.A., and of the United Nations? Freedom from want, and full employment, in a free society. That is the difficult, absorbing and exciting task which confornts us. The more we make our international organisations like U.N.R.R.A. and the International Commodity Board and the International Investment Board coextensive with actual practical activities, the more we develop the social and economic scope as against the purely political scope of international authority, the greater our success will be. Do not let us bite off more than we can chew and try and jump into world economic authority before we have succeeded in establishing local and regional authorities. Functional organisation, and the development of balanced regional economic units must be our first international objective; and the necessary foundation of any wider world economic order.

Mr. Hammersley: I do not propose to deal in anything like the comprehensive way with this matter as has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Though I appreciate most of what he has said there is perhaps a little flaw in the argument. He has indicated to us that bilateral agreement is the foundation upon which economic world organisation in the future should be keyed. If bilateral schemes are formulated we might be forced to some kind of restriction in our international economic organisations. Would it not be better to talk first not about bilateralism but about the necessity for world economic expansive policies and advocate the adoption by all nations of expansive internal economic policies rather than possible limitation by way of bilateralism?
I would like to say a word of welcome to the proposal that the Government have put forward in respect to U.N.R.R.A. It is appreciated that U.N.R.R.A. plan is only one of a number of international experiments in co-operation which we shall have to achieve if we are going to get the kind of world for which we are all seeking. I cannot examine the proposals of U.N.R.R.A. in any detail because in common with about 999,999


people out of every million one is very ignorant of what really is taking place. I would like to make a plea for less secrecy in these discussions which must take place before propositions are brought on to the floor of the House of Commons. In America they do these things rather more successfully. They have a system of organised leakage. If these matters were discussed and considered by persons who are interested and whose opinion is perhaps of some value before the plans achieved the state at which they come to the floor of the House of Commons, the House of Commons has either to accept or reject proposals presented to them, and the House of Commons would not think of rejecting measures of this kind without very much better knowledge.
We are guided in arriving at a judgment by considering some of the fruits of policies of this character. Several hon. Members have pointed out that one of the few places in which we can see the fruits of this international co-operation—though not precisely in the form of U.N.R.R.A.—is in southern Italy. There there is a tremendous amount of hardship which, in the opinion of many well-informed people, is unnecessary. The fixing of the rate of exchange at a very high figure has been noted by more than one Member. When one reflects that the amount of protein to which the American soldier is entitled in one day is more than the amount of protein the Italian people have in 30 days, international collaboration is not particularly successful. It must be remembered that in these measures of collaboration we in this country are involved and have to bear the odium for decisions for which we are not ourselves primarily responsible. It would be advisable if the Government could find better avenues for letting the House of Commons and the country know a little more about these proposals before they are finally settled than is at present the case.
Undoubtedly it should go out from the House of Commons and the country that we consider that the restoration of Europe is our primary duty and that we are prepared to play our part in international co-operation which we believe is the only practical way. We are willing and anxious to make our proper contribution, and a contribution of £80,000,000 is a very considerable one. One's mind is brought to consider how that £80,000,000

can be dealt with, bearing in mind that the relief that we want to give is food and material; it is not cash.
It seems to me essential, if we are to be able effectively to provide these means of payment that every one of the great countries of the world should pursue its own proper internal policy, an internal policy of full employment. If we achieve that, then we may be able to achieve means of payment which are indeed international, whether in the form of Bancor or some other international unit of the currency plans which are now being considered. If policies of full employment are not pursued in, say, the United States of America, and the United States of America thinks it is possible to export its unemployment, then we shall indeed be forced on to the policy of bilateralism which my hon. Friend has dealt with—we shall be forced in self-interest and, in fact, in the interest of the entire world, to agree to the formation of sterling block and we may find ourselves indulging in a competitive currency system arranged through bilateral treaties—a system which, in the end, will not, in my judgment, be for the greatest advantage of the world. America has got to face up to these facts. We cannot have international co-operation without America pursuing an internal policy which is in line with international co-operation. America has the ability, the wealth, and the power, and now America has got the opportunity. We, in this country, say we are willing to co-operate but we look to America to take advantage of that opportunity and then we will play our part.

Mr. Boothby: May I interrupt for one moment? It is only to say that I was at pains to point out in my speech that it was only in the absence of some assurance that the United States would pursue an expansionist policy that we should be obliged to fall back on bilateralism.

Mr. Hammersley: I agree entirely, but it is desirable to say that the policy we would pursue of first choice is the policy of international collaboration, and it is only if we are forced to a policy of bilateralism that we shall adopt that policy not because we want to but because we have to do so.

Miss Rathbone: I want to draw attention quite briefly to two or three points which have


not yet been dealt with in this Debate. They chiefly regard that function of U.N.R.R.A. which concerns the maintenance and repatriation of displaced persons. That is a very valuable and important provision and the size of that function alone which faces U.N.R.R.A. is shown in the estimate occurring somewhere in the White Paper that there will be tens of millions of displaced persons who will have to be considered at the end of the war. There is one thing that makes me a little anxious, and it is the treatment of that point in the White Paper. Perhaps it is natural, because it is a United Nations administration, but to my mind the whole tone of it is a little too much in nationalistic terms, as though it had been thinking almost exclusively of nationals of the United Nations and had been almost obliged to apologise for considering anybody else—for example, on page 74 in paragraph 11, where they refer almost timidly to the question of whether they shall help the return to their homes of displaced persons of enemy or ex-enemy nationality.
That presents particular difficulties, and they go on to hint that they may probably only be considering whether the person of ex-enemy or enemy nationality needed to be removed in cases where persons of United Nations nationality wanted to take over the homes from which the others were to be repatriated. I hope it will not be forgotten that there are large numbers of persons of enemy nationality or Stateless who are not of enemy sympathies and, in the same spirit which dictates that provision that U.N.R.R.A. shall not be influenced in giving relief by considerations of race or creed, these people should not be under this disadvantage because their origin is that of the enemy. For example, in some of the present enemy-occupied countries which U.N.R.R.A. will be dealing with as soon as they are liberated, there are large numbers of ex-German or Austrian Jews many of whom are now Stateless. There may also be persons belonging to neutral countries who will require to be repatriated and meantime maintained, I suggest that the test should be not so much the nationality of the displaced persons but whether their displacement is due to their own fault, or whether they are the victims of the persecuting and enemy nations, and in that case I think

they deserve as much attention as the nationals of the United Nations.
Then, again, in dealing with the question of health they speak at the top of page 13 of the need for close co-operation with the National Health authorities with a view to preventing and controlling any epidemics which may be expected to arise in the course of the repatriation of large groups of displaced persons. Here again, I would recall to the Committee the fact that in these countries there are enormous concentration camps used mainly for Jews, partly for political persons, where the internees have been subjected to almost complete starvation. There are also many labour camps of the same kind where health conditions will need to receive the closest possible attention not only to prevent epidemics, but before there can be a question of removing those people to places of permanent settlement. Here again I only want to make the point that the main test should be the need of the displaced person and not his national origin.
There is another point concerning displaced persons. The White Paper seems to assume nearly throughout that the displaced persons with whom we have to deal will be repatriable, but there are vast numbers of refugees and displaced persons who will not be able to be repatriated, and it would be a cruelty to force them to return when they would not willingly do so. I am glad to know that throughout this and other documents it is implied that persons cannot be forced to return to their countries of origin against their will and there will undoubtedly be very large numbers who will feel it to be impossible because their former countries have no associations for them but horror. Take the question of the Jews from Poland. Would they want to go back to a place which is one vast mortuary, where their wives and children and parents have been done to death? Or persons from Germany, who may feel the same thing has happened to their families, and where anti-Semitism is so deep-rooted that they would never willingly return.
It is quite understandable that the question of non-repatriables is not dealt with here because we have learned from other documents that the settlement of non-repatriables is going to be mainly the job of the inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. I therefore refer to it only for


this reason, that in the public mind and in the official mind there is some tendency to belittle the importance of the problem of the non-repatriables. Owing to the large numbers there are bound to be, this problem is not only of post-war importance but of present importance because one of the few chances of rescuing those who are still under Nazi persecution is of getting them into neutral countries, and it is going to be more difficult to get neutral countries to accept them if they feel that they are not going to get rid of them after the war. Therefore, those neutral countries ought to have speedy assurance as to what is going to happen to those who cannot be repatriated. They are now assured of ample machinery for dealing with the repatriables through U.N.R.R.A.
Although the Burmuda Conference long preceded the Hot Spring Conference, and still longer the conference at Atlantic City, we are still awaiting full discussion of the proceedings of the inter-Governmental Committee to which the whole matter was then referred and we have not voted our share of the money towards the administrative costs. I hope that a Debate on that subject will not be much longer delayed—it is a matter for the Leader of the House—and we should like to know what is the interlocking machinery, the liaison between the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees and the U.N.R.R.A. It is quite clear that their functions are going to be closely interlocked. In many cases it will be impossible beforehand to know who comes under which Committee, and which are repatriable and which are not repatriable. Therefore, those two Committees should be in constant touch and it is going to be difficult if one functions in the United States and one here in London.
Finally, I have this to say. Several speakers have referred to the fact that the enormous task to be dealt with by U.N.R.R.A. will entail some continuance of war sacrifices for ourselves, rationing will have to go on longer, and we shall have to do without food and clothing and fuel which are needed for the purposes of U.N.R.R.A. I am sure that is going to be so, and I would beg that all the human facts which lie behind this White Paper—which is full of facts of great interest to those already interested but so presented as to make for outsiders one of the dullest White Papers I have ever read—should

be brought home to the public by talks over the radio in this country and abroad so that people may realise the agony which Europe is enduring from hunger, from cold, and from fear. I believe that would have an admirable effect on the war effort and on the effort to save food and prevent waste. I would end with a very homely illustration. I was talking only the other day to a school mistress who said that at her girls' school she spoke to her class about the sufferings of the children in Europe. At the end one little girl said "Well, I always thought that I could not eat turnips but after hearing what those poor children in Europe are suffering, I feel I ought to be glad to eat anything." There is far too little realisation, even by those who are studying international problems all the time, of how little the general public know of what is happening in Europe. They would go to their jobs, save more and waste less if they realise that every moment of time and every piece of material wasted meant the prolongation of intolerable suffering.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I do not wish to delay the Committee for more than a few minutes. I feel that all of us who were present to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer open the Debate, and who have followed much of what has been said since, must realise the immense importance of the issue with which Parliament is now asked to deal for the first time. We must, however, regret that it is not realised more fully by the country as a whole and that we did not have a larger attendance to hear the Chancellor's speech on a subject of such importance that the whole future of Europe, if not of the world, depends upon its being carried through successfully. I think we can all feel thankful that even in such an important period of the war the United Nations are turning their thoughts in the way they have been doing to the work of healing and reconstruction. Looking back to what happened at the last stage of the last war and to the years-that followed we can take hope from the fact that thought is being given now to these immense problems and that international co-operation is being worked out in a practical way. The task will be far too big for any one nation to tackle or for voluntary relief to deal with, as it did very largely, after the last war.
What I want to plead for to-day is that in this planning and inter-governmental action which is absolutely necessary there shall be room still, and a secure place, for the voluntary organisations and their workers who can bring to their task the human touch that will be needed and who can give a certain amount of elasticity that cannot altogether be provided by the very best of planning. I remember that at the close of the last war, when I was working on relief and reconstruction in France, a good deal of thought was given to the subject of planning and reconstruction by the French local government authorities. The mission with which I was connected was co-operating with them, but plans had to be modified many times because of unforeseen factors. Many people were coming back to homes that did not exist in a way which had not been planned for by their own authorities. I remember an old lady of 80 appearing one evening with a cow and expecting to get back to her own village which had been utterly destroyed. She was only one of a number. You will have all over Europe crowds coming back in spite of all planning and all governmental action and you will need to have ample elasticity in your organisation, not to have it all tied up with decisions which leave no initiative or authority to the people on the spot. You will need to trust and make use of volunteers with experience and suitable qualifications who will work in with this inter-governmental planning. Unless you have this human touch you will fail again and again in a task where success is of immense importance not only to the individual but to the well being of the whole population.
So I shall be glad if we can get an assurance from the Minister of State that, along with this wise planning—which. I hope will be carried out in harmony with the spirit of the resolution that has laid down that no regard will be paid to race, nationality or creed but to human needs—there will be ample scope for the work of the volunteer and for the human sympathy and fellowship which no governmental machine can give. They must be married together if we are to get the success we need. I am sure that in all quarters of the Committee we shall wish that utmost success to the Minister in his great work and be thankful that he has this high position of authority and

such men to aid him as the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) and Sir Frederick Leith Ross, with their wide experience and vision. I am sure the Minister will have the sympathy and good will of all parties in this House for this work of binding up the wounds of war.

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): This has been an extremly interesting and an extremely encouraging Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) rather lamented that the attendance of the Committee had been small. Well, there are times when quality makes up for quantity and I believe that to-day has been such an occasion. We have had a number of extraordinarily interesting, thoughtful and constructive speeches from Members of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) said he thought it was important that a message should go out from the British House of Commons to the effect that we did recognise our responsibilities for the recovery of Europe and that we did believe in the principles of international co-operation. I am quite sure that such a message has, in fact, gone out from the Committee to-day.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he opened this Debate, referred to the White Paper as "a formidable document." The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said it was one of the dullest White Papers she had ever read. I must say I disagree with her entirely. Formidable this White Paper certainly is: it is formidable in its complexity, in its scope and in the terrific magnitude of the problems with which it deals. But as well as being formidable it is, I believe, tremendously inspiring.

Miss Rathbone: May I say that we who are interested in this matter do not find it dull?

Mr. Law: I am very glad that I misunderstood the hon. Lady.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) said he thought the proceedings of the Atlantic City Conference were a decisive example for the future. I entirely agree. I think that, if the approach of the United Nations to the problems of peace is to be the same as the approach that was


made at Atlantic City—an approach which combined realism with determination, benevolence without any trace of patronage and self-respect without any trace of excessive nationalism—then there is hope for us all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out that we have a special responsibility for this Whole relief problem because it was here in London that the whole thing was started two or three years ago, and he warned us that we must not evade that responsibility. I think there is no chance that we shall try to evade it, and the proceedings at Atlantic City bear that out too. It may not be altogether inappropriate if I echo here something that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. From everything that I have heard about Atlantic City the United Kingdom delegation, under the able leadership of the Minister of Food, had a very great part to play and played it nobly. Here again, if we can look forward in the post-war world to that kind of leadership from this country, a leadership sane, balanced, knowledgeable, and without any trace of dictation—and the proceedings at Atlantic City seem to indicate that we can—there is very much hope for us all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield surveyed some of the history of the past and I hope the Committee will not think it unduly tedious on my part if I cover and elaborate some of the points that he made. I think if I recapitulate some of the previous history of U.N.R.R.A., it will help the Committee both to understand the difficulties with which U.N.R.R.A. is faced and the manner in which it is hoped it will be able to meet them; and I hope it may throw some light upon some of the points that are troubling some of my hon. Friends. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the story of relief does not begin with the Atlantic City Conference. It does not even begin with the signature of the U.N.R.R.A. agreement at the White House. It began merely nearly three years ago with the meeting of the Allied Governments at St. James's Palace. As the result of those meetings, there was set up the Inter-Allied Committee of Postwar Requirements, of which the Inter-Allied Bureau, under the direction of Sir Frederick Leith Ross, was, as it were, the secretariat. The Inter-Allied Committee had no executive functions. Even

then, nearly three years ago, it was recognised that some executive machinery would sooner or later be required, but the function of the Inter-Allied Committee was not to execute policy but rather to gather information without which it would have been impossible to formulate any policy at all. Accordingly the Inter-Allied Committee prepared a series of estimates for the needs of liberated Europe, and those estimates have in a sense been the foundation of U.N.R.R.A.; and, if it had not been for the activities of the Inter-Allied Committee and the Bureau, the task of U.N.R.R.A. would have been even more formidable than in fact it is to-day.
The estimates prepared by the Inter-Allied Committee were necessarily incomplete and imperfect, but they provided the basis upon which relief work has been founded ever since. I said that these estimates were incomplete and imperfect for this reason. The Inter-Allied Committee was not concerned with questions of supply but purely with questions of relief. It did not have to consider whether supplies were available, but only on the assumption that they were available, what measure of supply would be necessary to meet an ascertained need. In this sense the estimates of the Inter-Allied Committee must be regarded to some extent as theoretical. Nevertheless, subject to this qualification, which I admit in the circumstances in which we find ourselves is a considerable qualification, I do not think it would be possible to overestimate the value of the work that has been done by the Inter-Allied Committee, work without which it would have been impossible for U.N.R.R.A. to proceed at all. Not only that. The proceedings of the Inter-Allied Committee to those who followed them were an outstanding example of United Nations co-operation. It was quite remarkable how the representatives of our various peoples were prepared to set aside their particular interests for the sake of promoting the common interest. U.N.R.R.A. has indeed a high example to follow in the proceedings of the Inter-Allied Committee but, if the Atlantic City Conference is any guide, that example will be followed to the fullest possible extent.
I have said that this story began with the meeting at St. James's Palace in 1941. Conditions in 1944 are very different from what they were then, and it is those differences


which largely condition the work of U.N.R.R.A. In 1941 we were living, as we supposed, in a time of abundance and of surpluses. The problem in those days was simply how to distribute that abundance and dispose of those surpluses. It is very different to-day. It is no longer a problem of distributing abundance and disposing of surpluses. It is no longer a case of cutting up the cake and handing it round on a silver platter. It is a case of scraping the pot and making do. It is no longer a question of distributing from our abundance to each according to his need, but of spreading the butter as widely as we can, and distributing our slender resources with as little unfairness as possible. To-day, as compared with 1941, we are in a period of acute scarcity. There is a world shortage of food, a world shortage of many kinds of raw material, above all there is a world shortage of labour and shipping. And these shortages obviously have a very great effect upon the operations of U.N.R.R.A.
Another great change has taken place since 1941. Then it was not a world war that we were engaged in. There was no Far Eastern war. The United States was not among our Allies. In those days we were proceeding on the assumption that, at a given moment of time, the war would come to an end, Europe would be liberated and we should be free to proceed at once, and without any other pre-occupation, to the task of reconstruction and relief. In fact, as we know, things have turned out otherwise. In all human probability the war with Japan will continue after the war with Germany is over, and, even so far as the war in Europe is concerned, it is possible that the war with Germany itself will still be continuing after parts of Europe have been liberated. In other words, the prosecution of the war and the affording of relief have to proceed simultaneously. The claims of war and the claims of peace will be marching along side by side, and to some extent in competition. More than that, in 1941 we were thinking only in terms of the relief of Europe. Now we have to think of the relief of Asia as well. The task is both vaster and much more complicated than we thought it was in 1941. At the same time, the resources which we have for discharging that task are nothing like so great.
It is against this background of a gigantic task, with strictly limited resources for meeting it, that we have to consider the functions of U.N.R.R.A. and the whole problem of relief. The Committee will have seen from the White Paper that the Council meeting at Atlantic City has taken full account of these difficulties—the difficulties that arise from the fact that the war will still be continuing after the period of relief has begun, and the difficulties that arise from shortages of supply. In the first place, it was laid down at Atlantic City that the prosecution of the war must have absolute paramountcy over everything else, that everything must be subordinated to the prosecution of the war. From that proposition, from which I imagine there will be little dissent, certain consequences flow, notably this, that the operations of U.N.R.R.A. have to be co-ordinated with and to some extent subordinated to the supplying agencies which are responsible for allocating the supplies and shipping which are needed for the prosecution of the war. Any other arrangement would obviously, I think, lead to chaos, a chaos which would affect the course of military operations, would prolong the war and would make infinitely more difficult the already difficult task of U.N.R.R.A. That does not mean, however, that the policy of U.N.R.R.A. is to be dictated to it by the supply agencies. It does mean that the demands of U.N.R.R.A. for purely relief purposes have to be fitted into the wider demands of the war. It means that the needs of our Armed Forces must be fully met. It means that the contribution of civilian populations to the war effort must not be limited, and that a fair distribution of available supplies to civilian populations must take into account their contributions, actual or potential, to the war effort.
Several of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, raised the question of the relationship between relief and rehabilitation on the one hand, and reconstruction on the other. My right hon. Friend said that, however much you tried to make a dividing line, you could not really divide rehabilitation from reconstruction. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) said it was essential that


U.N.R.R.A. should have the closest contact with other United Nations economic organisations which have been set up or may be set up in the future. It is quite true that it is impossible on a matter of this kind to draw any hard and fast line. I think that there is a workable line drawn in the White Paper. U.N.R.R.A. is concerned with the short-term problems of relief, suffering and want arising directly out of the war. So far as rehabilitation, that is to say the supply of spare parts, machinery and so on, is needed for that purpose, then U.N.R.R.A. will assist in rehabilitation; but it is laid down clearly in Resolution 12, paragraph 9, that U.N.R.R.A. is not itself an organ of world reconstruction. I think that that is as it should be. It would clearly be impracticable for this piece of United Nations machinery, which has already this formidable task before it, to take on in addition the task of a world economic conference.

Mr. Greenwood: It is quite clear that U.N.R.R.A. is a device for a specific purpose, and the point I tried to make was that the policy followed would really affect the shape and terms of post-war reconstruction. I was not recommending that U.N.R.R.A. should be a world body for all purposes.

Mr. Law: I am much obliged to my right hon Friend for his interjection. I thoroughly endorse what he has just said. It is true that what is done here will affect the long-term picture, and it is, therefore, all the more essential that the closest contact should be maintained between U.N.R.R.A. and other organisations which may be set up by the United Nations. Provision is made for that contact in the Resolutions themselves. The White Paper lays it down that the administration has to maintain contact with the supply agencies. It also lays down that it should maintain contact with other inter-governmental agencies, and it specifies the International Labour Office and the Interim Food Commission which resulted from Hot Springs, or the permanent Food Office which we hope will result from the interim deliberations of the Food Commission. This question of collaboration has been thoroughly well taken care of by the Council. I agree with my right hon. Friend and my other hon. Friends that it is an important point.
As well as the principle that the operations of U.N.R.R.A. must be subordinated to the war effort these Resolutions have enunciated another important principle. That is, although it is not defined in these words, that in a time of great shortage it is undesirable as well as unfair that there should be an unlimited scramble for goods and services in short supply. It is clearly unfair that where you have two nations, both of which have been equally despoiled by the enemy and both of which have equally resisted him, one nation should have a preferential advantage over the other which is based upon nothing but considerations of finance. It is clearly undesirable for quite other reasons. If when the war is drawing to its closing stages we in the United Nations admit the principle of the auction room, that the longest purse must be the final arbiter in these matters, and if we allow an unlimited scramble for limited supplies, not only will we build up a post-war boom which will be a record in all post-war booms, but we will create a slump by the side of which the depression of the thirties will appear like a smiling sunlit valley. We should, if we took that course, be underwriting unemployment queues and breadlines in this country, the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and in each of the United Nations.
The Council, at Atlantic City, however, decided otherwise. It decided against that course. It was laid down by the Council that one of the principal functions of the Director-General of U.N.R.R.A. should be to hold the balance between those countries which have adequate resources and those which are lacking in resources. In, I think, the third part of the first Resolution on general policy, in the White Paper, the Director-General is instructed to supply himself with an over-all picture of relief as a whole from all the liberated territories, whether they have resources or whether they have not. He is instructed to acquaint himself with the global picture of relief. It is his right, indeed it is his duty, if he sees any disparity of treatment between one country and another, to make his representations to the supplying agencies. And it is the duty of the supplying agencies to heed his representations.
I have given the Committee two of the main principles which must govern


the operations of U.N.R.R.A.: the paramountcy of the war and the need for holding the balance between countries with resources and those without; but there is a third principle which emerges quite clearly from this White Paper. It is, I think, a vital principle. The Committee will have noticed that in more than one Resolution some allusion is made to the Director-General or the administration taking such and such action "if so invited" or "if so requested" by the military commander or by the local government. That means in effect that U.N.R.R.A. is not conceived of as a dictatorship, not even a benevolent dictatorship. U.N.R.R.A. is not even conceived of as a kindly governess or universal aunt, bustling about, whether she is wanted or not, and handing out a smack to a rebellious child or a sweet or candy to a satisfactory child. That is not the picture at all. U.N.R.R.A. goes only where U.N.R.R.A. is wanted. If a country requires the assistance of U.N.R.R.A., that assistance will be given to the fullest extent possible, but if a country prefers to apply its own power and to get on without U.N.R.R.A's assistance, it is free to do that.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier to-day one of the principal functions of U.N.R.R.A. is to help the nations to help themselves. Such a conception as that, the idea that a nation should be free and encouraged to work out its own destiny, is entirely contrary to the ideas of architects. It is fundamental to the conception of the United Nations. If a nation wishes to do without the assistance of U.N.R.R.A., that nation is perfectly free to do so, but that does not mean that if a nation does without the assistance of U.N.R.R.A. it is at liberty to go out into the markets of the world and buy, regardless of what arrangements are being made by U.N.R.R.A.
Those are, as it seems to me, the main principles which are behind the United Nations Relief Administration. How are those principles to be made effective, and what is the machinery to make them effective? First of all, there is the Central Council and there is the Central Committee. Those are the policy-forming bodies. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Dr. Haden Guest) who said that the Council

or the Committee of U.N.R.R.A. would have a power far greater than that of any existing national government. I think he exaggerated the power of the Committee and of the Council, because, from what I have just said about principles on which U.N.R.R.A. will operate and the principle which allows any nation to contract out of compulsory benevolence, it is clear that the Council and the Committee cannot exercise their power in any tyrannical way. However, the seat of policy is the Council and the Central Committee, and that policy is executed by the Director-General and his administrative staff. The Council, the Director-General and the Committee are being advised by a number of technical committees of which the membership, it is hoped, will be very highly qualified. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) said that even if we did not insist upon U.N.R.R.A. going out for quantity we ought to concentrate at any rate upon quality. We ought to see that the personnel it was using was highly qualified. I think my hon. Friend will find all the technical committee personnel just as highly qualified as the United Nations can lay their hands upon.

Mr. Palmer: The particular point I wanted to make was not in relation to the actual Administration Board and the setting up of a technical committee. It was in relation to the sending abroad of personnel in the field of relief work overseas. I am very anxious that man-power of high quality shall be made available for that work.

Mr. Law: I am obliged to my hon. Friend but I think that principle would apply also to the technical committees as well as to the sending of personnel abroad. In addition to the technical committees I am speaking of, the central organisation includes a Committee on Supplies, of which the function would be to keep an eye on supply questions and the relationship of U.N.R.R.A. with the supplying agencies, as well as to adjudicate upon the question of payment—what country can pay and what country cannot pay. Then there is a Finance Committee, which has to advise the Director-General and the Council upon budgetary matters. So much for the Central administration.
It is obvious that for work of this worldwide scope, everything cannot be centralised


in one part of the globe. Accordingly, there are to be two regional committees, one in the Far East and one for Europe, the European Regional Committee to be situated in London. As we have heard to-day, Sir Frederick Leith Ross is to be one of the Directors General of that local administration. In the same way, the Far Eastern Committee will have a Far Eastern administration which will, of course, be subordinated to the Director-General in Washington. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, and also I think the hon. Member for Islington North, referred to the sending of personnel abroad. This is an extremely complicated question. It is really impossible to define, with any real exactitude, what numbers of personnel U.N.R.R.A. will want to send abroad. The limiting factors are these: It is laid down in the White Paper, and in the resolutions, that it is only at the request of a member government and under the direction of the Director-General that foreign voluntary workers will be called in at all. It may well be that in a number of countries, particularly in Western Europe, there will be no very great demand for voluntary workers from this country. Governments and peoples will naturally prefer to do this work themselves, if they can.
In other parts of Europe the demand may be greater but it is impossible to estimate what it will be. At the moment the Council of British Societies for Relief Abroad is making up teams to be held in reserve against any demand from U.N.R.R.A. These teams will, I hope, be highly qualified and I think if one just runs over some of the names of the kind of teams that will be wanted it will be seen that the qualifications necessary are very high, and that there will be no great demand for well meaning amateurs. For example there is a water purification unit, a bacteriological unit, a static disinfector unit and so on and so on. It is not going to be, as I am sure the Committee realise, a sort of Continental holiday for young people from Mayfair. What we shall want are extremely skilled and highly qualified people to go out and assist in the relief work of Europe.
I think it was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bristol North who compared conditions now so far as this matter of relief is concerned with conditions at the end of the last war. His comparison

was very just. We have made tremendous advances in this war as compared with the last in our preparations for the future. This question of relief is a case in point. In the last war, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, it was not until the very last moment—the machinery was not indeed until after the war—that the machinery was set up. We waited until the problem was right upon us and then we set up the machinery. This time we are setting up the machinery well in advance of the need for it, and I can assure the Committee that His Majesty's Government are quite as convinced as any hon. Member of the Committee of the urgency of this matter. Another difference between this war and the last which I think my hon. and gallant Friend also pointed out is that this time all the countries concerned have a say in the operation of the relief organisation. It is not a question this time, as it was last time, of certain unhappy peoples in Europe being paupers on the dole. This time everybody is a member of U.N.R.R.A. and everybody has to pull his weight.
Then there is the question of finance. It is not only a difference in scale, though the difference in scale is tremendous. I think the total expenditure in relief after the last war, I take the League of Nations figures, was something like 1,000 million dollars. The figure now is something like 2,000 million dollars. That of course is understandable because the problem today is infinitely greater than in 1918, but the real difference in the financial point is that in the last war finance of relief was very largely through loans. Theoretically, these loans had to be repaid. In fact very few of them were repaid and they lingered on as a kind of soreness, a kind of poison, in international relationships for many years. This time there is no question of loans. Those countries that can pay will pay, and those countries that cannot pay will have a gift from countries more fortunate than themselves.
Finally, there is this difference between conditions now and conditions 25 years ago. This time, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, the machinery for the production of relief supplies is co-ordinated, geared in with, the machinery for the production of war supplies and supplies for other peace purposes.


That will mean that the relief administration will get a fair crack of the whip. It will mean that it will not be, as it was last time when, in the main, relief goods were those goods which nobody else wanted. Relief production and war production and peace production will on this occasion march along together, and each one will get its fair share. I would like in conclusion just to refer back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said in his speech earlier in the Debate. We have a moral obligation to make U.N.R.R.A. a success. We are committed to the success in this first step in United Nations co-operation. I can assure the Committee that there will be no lack of effort on the part of His Majesty's Government to see that this and other ventures in international co-operation are successful in the fullest possible degree.

Dr. Haden Guest: Before my right hon. Friend concludes might I ask a question? He mentioned an amount spent on League of Nations relief. Could he give figures for the total relief by the Hoover administration and by the large number of voluntary relief organisations?

Mr. Law: No, I am afraid I have not got that figure. I was speaking only of the League of Nations loans. I agree it would be a misleading figure if it was thought to cover the whole field.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend clear up one point? In the White Paper nothing is said on what method would have to be adopted in the unfortunate event of any one of the United Nations wishing to drop out of the scheme. If they cannot hang together and carry the scheme through, I cannot see from the White Paper that any machinery exists for any country to withdraw should it so wish. There is no way out. Would my right hon. Friend say anything about that?

Mr. Law: I do not suppose my hon. Friend is looking for any kind of sanction, against, as it were, a defaulting nation, because I do not think there is one. I cannot see the circumstances in which a nation might wish to withdraw. If it did withdraw, it would lose the advantages of being a member of the administration. That is in the Agreement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and Supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the Defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under control of any of the United Nations and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

VOTE OF CREDIT, 1944

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, the sum of £750,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Assheton.]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Assheton.]

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In 1939, the time of the outbreak of war, separate Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts were passed for Scotland and England. As the House is aware, the main provisions were to require that the leave of the Court should be got before creditors could exercise certain rights against debtors. In that way, a good measure of protection was given to debtors if their inability to pay was due to war circumstances. The Scots Act has, I think I may claim, worked smoothly. Very few cases have come before the Court of Session, and there has been no amendment from the outbreak of war until now. In England, where war circumstances have been very different in some districts, there have been four amending Acts in the interval. On each occasion when an amending Bill was proposed for England it was our duty in Scotland, and in particular my duty, to consider how far, if at all, we should adopt parallel legislation. On each occasion I came to the conclusion that that would not be desirable. Most of these amendments impose a great deal of extra restriction on those who seek to enforce their legal rights, and some additional burdens on the Courts. I took the view that we should not propose amending legislation for Scotland until there seemed to be somewhat immediate necessity for it. But I think the time has come when I ought to ask the House to pass an amending Bill.
Much the most important of the Clauses in this Bill is Clause 1. Under the principal Act, relief could be given to debtors only if the contract under which the obligation arose was made before the outbreak of war. That was, of course, on the footing that people who make contracts during the war do so with their eyes open, and normally take steps to provide for what may happen in various circumstances as the war goes on. But a great many things have happened during the war which no one could reasonably have anticipated in the case of a contract made in 1939 or 1940. In England this original restriction was removed in 1941. I began to make inquiries shortly after

that, and for the last 18 months I have been making fairly extensive inquiries, to find out whether there was any real necessity for introducing this corresponding change into Scots law, but I have yet to find any single case where the absence of the provision of Clause 1 has made any difference, or where the Clause could have been of any advantage to anybody. There has been no representation brought to my notice nor have I found any real demand for this change. But time moves on and circumstances change, and every day it becomes more likely that something will arise that might cause hardship if this alteration were not made. I realise that this alteration imposes considerable additional burdens on many people, but I think it would be unsafe to leave the matter as it is any longer, because if a case arose there would be considerable and irremediable hardship. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the principle of Clause 1. I should say that I have, within the last few weeks, received notice that the appropriate committee of solicitors in Scotland has recommended that this change should be made. Of course, any debtor who seeks to take advantage of this wider protection must show that the war circumstances on which he relies have arisen after the contract has been made, and not before.
The other two Clauses cover much narrower fields and are rather technical. Clause 2 arises in this way. One of the stages at which protection may be sought by debtors is when the creditor seeks to take possession of or to realise property which has been pledged for the due performance of the debtor's obligations and then the debtor makes default and the creditor seeks to attach the property. Generally speaking, the property belongs to the debtor himself, and then there is no difficulty: the existing Act applies. But where one person pledges his property in security for some other person's obligations, the owner of the property is not entitled, under the existing Act, to seek protection, because he is not a person under any obligation. That matter arose in England in circumstances which would not be exactly paralleled in Scotland, and the form of the English remedy was not precisely applicable in Scotland. I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that it would not be proper to come to Parliament for a separate Act dealing with this very small point, which can occur only in a handful


of cases at most, but it so happened that in one case the circumstances were such that had this provision been in operation it could have been appealed to—whether with any success or not I do not know; that would depend on the facts of the case. Therefore, I think it is plainly right that we should take advantage of the opportunity afforded by bringing in Clause 1 to take Clause 2 in addition.
Clause 3 represents another rather technical matter. Where you have a hire-purchase contract, the court may give relief if the seller, shall I call him, seeks to regain possession of the articles which he has let out or sold because the instalments have not been paid. But the contract may be so obscure that, although the court gives protection against resumption of possession, nevertheless there is a forfeiture of the purchaser's rights, so that when the time comes for him to resume payment he finds that his right to do so has gone and that ultimately he will lose the article. Well, that does not seem at all just. This matter was apparently raised in England as early as 1940. I have never heard of a corresponding case in Scotland, and I have had no representations that the Clause is necessary, but there does seem to be some justification for it, and it seems to me that we ought to adopt this Clause, although I have never found a case to which it could apply.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I would like to ask a question. Is this Bill being made retrospective?

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. I do not think it is possible to make the powers retrospective. What the Bill says, broadly, is that, in a number of circumstances, any creditor who wishes to get a decree from the court, or to use some other remedy, must come to the court and ask leave to put that remedy in operation. Well, if he has already put the remedy in operation, I do not see how that can be undone, and it is only by undoing what has been done that, as far as I can see, you can make this retrospective.

Mr. Maclean: That puts me in a position to criticise the Law Officers of Scotland, at this stage, for bringing in a Bill after this has been punishable on people in Scotland. There are firms in my constituency who, by legal action and other means, wished to retain their factories

and carry them on under circumstances which would enable them to add to the sum total of war work. But they were put behind and well down with their production because their plant was actually advertised for sale in the Glasgow papers and bills were set up around the factory by the lending party—an English assurance company—and, but for the action of a Scottish bank, these people would have been put out of business. The production of war materials was slowed down by the action of this company in England in endeavouring to sell up the factory and machinery. There is another point. Most of the machinery in that factory was engaged in doing essential work under contract with various Departments which authorised them to carry out that work. The work of the machinery would enable the war to be brought to a speedier termination, if possible, than would have been likely if, as a unit, that factory had been put out of action. There is an Order in Council which makes it punishable for any individual to offer for sale any machinery or machine that is doing essential war work without the permission of the particular Department of the Government for which it is doing the contract. Such permission was not given to that particular assurance company, and I would like to know from the Law Officers for Scotland, in whose domain it happened, whether in the circumstances they do not intend to take any action for such a violation of the Order-in-Council by a very wealthy English assurance company.
It has been stated that this new Clause in the Bill will be essential to protect in the future anyone in similar circumstances from the same ordeal as this firm had to go through. The case was taken into the Court of Session and was brought to the floor of the House of Lords. They lost their appeal to the House of Lords, and a rather curious thing about it was this. From what I can gather and from what the Law Officer of the Crown has just told us, if any particular individual would guarantee the debt, and it was possible for him to realise sufficient to pay the debt or satisfy the creditor with the largest instalment, then his position was met in the English Act by an Amendment, but the Law Officer of the Crown did not think it was worth repeating in the Scottish Act. One of these individuals who had pledged his property had five tenements in Clydebank,


from which he drew an income. During the two nights of blitz that took place, these five tenements were among the properties destroyed, and they are not occupied to-day and no income is derived from that bombed property. That was put forward as a reason why this particular debt could not be met—that it was due to circumstances of war. The Court of Session ruled that out, and in the House of Lords it was ruled out. I want to know whether a matter of that kind ought not to have come within the ambit of the law as it was in England at the time these cases were heard. The Lord Advocate comes now with an Amendment locking the door of the stable after the horse has gone and giving no compensation to the firm which has lost several thousand pounds by the blundering of the Scottish Law Officers through an oversight. They pride themselves on these things, but laws have been passed in England to protect debtors against sales. They did not even make it their job to see that any particular creditor, either in Scotland or England, whose debtor was in Scotland, could take him into court.
Other people will still be in danger if this Act is not made retrospective. The Lord Advocate is not putting up anything like a probable or natural case for those who are in debt in Scotland, as they have no safeguards in the Amendment he has put into the amending Bill. As far as this English Equity and Law Life Assurance Society is concerned, there is not much equity for individuals. Is the Lord Advocate prepared to take action against this insurance company for offering for sale, in violation of an Order, machinery, and a factory that was engaged in essential war work? I hope his reply will show that he is going to prevent attempts by any individual who is a creditor, whether he be in Scotland or in England, to put into bankruptcy firms which are trying to do what they can for the war effort. This may not be a large factory, but the machinery was for the most part invented by and patented by members of the firm, who showed initiative of that kind in order to support the war effort of this country, and they ought to have the support and protection of the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving a brief explanation of

the Bill. I cannot make out what the purpose or object of it is, and I hope he will have another try. There may be others besides myself who are incapable of appreciating a mere abbreviated explanation. It says:
Where the appropriate court refuses leave under Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act to take or resume possession of goods let under a hire purchase agreement or to do diligence on any decree for the delivery of any such goods, or gives such leave subject to restrictions and conditions, and the hirer or purchaser, before possession is taken or diligence is done.
Who does this diligence? Who takes this decision and by what authority is it done? The opening paragraph of the Clause says:
Where the appropriate court refuses leave.
Presumably a case has come before the court with regard to some article on hire-purchase. The owner of the article tries to persuade the court to give decree and take possession and to give diligence. The court refuses, presumably for some good reason which has been given by the hirer. The court having refused, the hirer may retain his possession of the article by paying all the outstanding instalments. I cannot understand it. If the court has refused to give power to take possession or to do diligence the hirer is retaining possession of the article in any case. I would not dream for one moment that our Scottish Law Officers would introduce a Clause containing no purpose, but as the representative of a Scottish division where constituents frequently have troubles of this kind, I would like an explanation of the matter.
I want to deal with another matter and one which is excluded from the Bill. I had a case brought to my notice recently, and I understand that it is not exceptional. Many owners of property in Scotland are refusing to do the normal repairs and maintenance work required for keeping a house in decent habitable condition. They have very good excuses. There are many limitations on the getting of labour and materials in order to carry out the repairs, but the impression I have formed from many complaints brought to me is, that the excuse of war exigencies is being a little overworked. I particularly feel that there ought to be something done in the way of changing the legal procedure as typified by this case. A lady has been tenant of a house for 21 years and has


paid her rent with regularity. Over a very extended period she has endeavoured to get the owner, through the factor, to make the necessary repairs to a chimney.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): This hardly comes in under the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I understand—and you will correct me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I am wrong, and I am always willing to be guided by you in these matters—that this is a Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it should come in, but that is about the farthest he can go. He can suggest that there should be a Clause to that effect and that the Bill is deficient in that respect.

Mr. Maxton: That is all I am desiring to do. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland have put the House to the trouble of discussing a Bill for putting the emergency powers of the courts in Scotland on to a more workmanlike basis, they ought to try to make it a Bill to cover all the more outstanding grievances that arise in connection with legal administration in Scotland. The case I am putting before the House is one of judicial procedure.

Mr. Maclean: And not exceptional.

Mr. Maxton: It is very widespread. This lady, after repeated attempts to get the factor to carry out the improvement, goes to a local tradesman and gets the job done herself. It costs some 30s., and when the next quarter's rent is due she subtracts that amount from the rent, which seems a reasonable thing to do. It is the landlord's job. He has been unable or unwilling to find someone to do it and she has got it done herself. Her husband, who is actually the tenant, and is the captain of a merchant ship sailing the seas, is summoned to the court for not paying the full rent. The court, in the absence of the man and his wife—she does not come because she has not been summoned, and he is sailing a ship on the far Seas to bring petrol over for the landlord's motor car—gives a decree to take diligence on her goods, and the factors, the clerks, and the sheriffs' officers come climbing up the stairs and knocking at the door and all the neighbours know——

Viscountess Astor: They do not do that in England.

Mr. Maxton: Well, you are lucky, but this is a Scottish Measure.

Viscountess Astor: They are wild.

Mr. Maxton: If the Noble Lady will allow me——

Mr. Maclean: If it is time for the Noble Lady to go, she should go; the rest of us can wait.

Mr. Maxton: The Noble Lady has not listened to a word I have said or I am sure she would realise that this is as important as the matter she is interested in a little later on. I can assure her that when we get on to the business in which she is interested I will not try to make a mess of it.

Viscountess Astor: We shall never get on to it.

Mr. Maxton: Oh, yes, you will and I shall not interrupt. The woman has judgment given against her in her absence and the Sheriff's officers are permitted to seize the goods in the house, and I am told that she has absolutely no legal remedy whatever; the judgment of the Court having been given, she has to pay this sum with expenses, or have her goods seized and sold by auction. I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it not a reasonable amendment that should have been put into this Bill, to make it possible that housewives, and particularly the wives of men who are away ham home through the exigencies of national service, should have some right of protection, some support from the ordinary judicial procedure, against landlords who are using the war situation of the nation to escape from the duty imposed upon them to keep their properties reasonably watertight and habitable? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his reply will have something to say about this matter. I do not want to hold up the factors of that particular property to public obloquy, and I am quite willing to give him the names of the factors and the address of the house privately.

Mr. McLean Watson: I would like to put a question to my right hon. and learned Friend, before he replies to the Debate, on a matter which has been put before me on this question


of hire-purchase. It is rather a different angle from that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I wonder if the Lord Advocate could tell us how many Government employees are protected against traders claiming debts due to them either by hire-purchase or otherwise? I have had representations made to me by traders in my constituency, and I have also had representations made to me by the County Clerk, raising the point that certain Government employees cannot be proceeded against in the courts for debts they have incurred. I wonder if the Lord Advocate could tell the House how many Government Departments can take on debts and, after making a few initial payments, refuse to continue payments? The matter is one which has been brought to my attention several times. I hope the Lord Advocate will say why he has not taken steps in this Measure to make good what has been an injustice to traders in our area. I do not want to prevent the Lord Advocate from having an opportunity of replying to the Debate and I will leave the matter there, though I could have said a great deal more on this matter.

The Lord Advocate: With the leave of the House, let me first deal with the two points as to why certain things are not in this Bill. This is not a general Bill to amend the law of Scotland; it is a Bill to amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act and accordingly its scope is limited. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) wants me to bring in a Clause to amend the law of landlord and tenant as to liability for rent, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) wants an Amendment of the law about arrestment of wages. Both of those would be quite outside the scope of this Bill. With regard to the last, it is a fact that you cannot arrest the wages of a servant of the Crown, and as that is the normal way of recovering debt you may be precluded in certain circumstances from getting your money, but that is a universal rule which applies throughout Scotland to all servants of the Crown and I am afraid I cannot deal with it further just now.
To come to the two points about the Bill itself. The hon. Member for Bridgeton wants to know the meaning of Clause 3. I did not go into it in detail

because, as I said, the circumstances had in fact never arisen, so far as I know, in Scotland and it is very technical, but I will try to explain it. Supposing the purchaser under a hire-purchase agreement falls into arrear with his instalments, then the seller tries to take back the goods. He has to go to the Court to get authority. The Court says, "No, war circumstances have caused the instalment to be in arrear and you cannot take back the bicycle"—or whatever it is. All is well as long as that Court order stands, but there will come a day, sometime, when things have got to be squared up, and it depends on the way in which the contract is drafted. Some contracts, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, are very stringent, and may contain a provision which affects the whole right of the purchaser, by reason of his having fallen into arrear in the first instance in paying his instalments. Therefore, if the law were allowed to stand as it is to-day, the seller might be able to say, "It is perfectly true the Court has held the status quo for a time, but the Court order is off now. I declare your rights forfeited, and I take back the bicycle and you have got no remedy." It is to alter that state of affairs that we are bringing in this Clause, so that, when the occasion for the Court's stand-still order comes to an end, the purchaser may be able to say, "Now I have got the money to pay these instalments in arrear, and I tender you the money," and the seller will have to take the money and not seek to recover the bicycle. I hope I have made that clear.

Mr. Maxton: I do not see the circumstances.

The Lord Advocate: As I say, they have not occurred in Scotland, but they have occurred in England, and we thought it right to guard against their occurring in Scotland. I have tried to make it as clear as I can, and I am afraid I cannot make it clearer. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) raised a point about Clause 2. I said earlier that I had had to choose between bringing in all the English Amendments at the time they were made and thereby imposing a good deal of extra work, and possibly embarrassing a lot of people in Scotland, or, on the other hand, holding my hand with the risk that something unexpected might occur. The circumstances of the case to


which he refers are extremely unusual and, frankly, had not been foreseen. I may have been wrong in weighing the balance between a certain amount of difficulty and embarrassment to a large number of people and considerable hardship for one person. But I thought it was proper not to introduce that single point by way of a separate Bill at that time. I thought it would be better to wait until Clause 1 appeared to be ready for introduction into this House. That is a frank statement of how it occurred. The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion if he thinks I exercised my judgment wrongly but, looking back, I am by no means sure that I was wrong.

Mr. Maclean: It cost the firm £3,000. They had to pay it and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not.

The Lord Advocate: One has to weigh up what might happen on the one hand and what might happen on the other. Whatever you do you cause a certain amount of trouble and expense to somebody. I took the view that it would be better to stay as we were, and I am not sure that I was wrong.

Mr. Maclean: We think you were wrong.

The Lord Advocate: Well, that is the reason for it, and I cannot give any further explanation. Finally, the hon. Member asked me a question with regard to the advertising of a certain article for sale. That was brought to my notice some months ago and was fully investigated at my direction. I considered the information which was obtainable, and came to the conclusion that the facts disclosed did not amount to an infringement of the Order and that a prosecution would not succeed. I therefore directed that no further proceedings should be taken.

Mr. Maclean: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that these machines, which were doing war work, were not advertised for sale publicly by this equity assurance company in England? Does he say that? If he does will he look at the "Glasgow Herald," one of the Scottish papers which carried the advertisement, and see the proof there?

The Lord Advocate: I am well aware that there was an advertisement. I saw it and I did consider whether the facts amounted to an infringement of a certain

Order. In considering the question—although this is really out of Order on this Bill—I came to the conclusion that no offence had been disclosed. That being so I could not prosecute.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Captain McEwen.]

Committee upon the next Sitting Day.

POST OFFICE, JUVENILE HELPERS (PAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Lipson: I desire to raise the question of the difference in pay given to boys and girls who helped the Post Office during the time of their pressure of work at Christmas. On 15th December I asked the Postmaster-General——

Mr. Maxton: Is that the subject about which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) was getting excited just now?

Viscountess Astor: Cannot you do something about the hon. Member opposite, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? He is always interrupting.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): So far as interruptions are concerned, I seem to have noticed other people doing it.

Viscountess Astor: You always notice me, but not the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Lipson: As I was saying, on 15th December I asked the Postmaster-General this Question:
Whether he will change the prescribed maxima of the rates of pay for school children who help with the postal work at Christmas, so as to provide that they shall be the same for both sexes.
The answer given by my right hon. and gallant Friend was:
No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1943; col. 1548, Vol. 395.]
I understand that the actual rates of pay are fixed by local postmasters, but the


condition is laid down that boys are always to be paid more than girls——

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

Mr. Lipson: I feel that it is wrong that that there should be this discrimination. Everyone appreciates the fact that, in spite of war difficulties, the delivery of letters at Christmas was done remarkably well. The credit for this must go, of course, partly to the permanent staff, but the volunteers must also receive their share of praise. To overcome the difficulties of war conditions at Christmas time the Postmaster General appealed to the schools to allow older children to help in this esrvice. They responded, and they did their work well, but there is no question that the boys were any more or less efficient than the girls. Both boys and girls were doing exactly the same kind of work and they should receive the same remuneration. That, so far as juveniles are concerned, is actually the common practice in the Civil Service. The junior clerical staff, whether boys or girls, start at the same pay, and the same applies to the junior administrative class and also to the junior executive class. It is true that they diverge later, but actually at the outset boys and girls begin alike.
I cannot understand why the Postmaster General should draw a distinction between boys and girls of school age in a service of this kind. The only argument that is advanced for paying women less than men in many kinds of posts is that men have greater financial responsibilities. They have to maintain a home and so on. That argument, of course, cannot apply to the school children, most of whom I imagine are between 14 and 17, who did service of this kind. This does not, therefore, mean that, if the Postmaster General had agreed to pay the same rate to both boys and girls, the Post Office would be committed to the general principle of equal pay for men and women. I wish they would accept that principle, as I stand for it, and this House stands for it because on 19th May, 1920, it passed a Resolution saying that equal pay was expedient, and, since I

asked my Question I was very interested to note that in the Report on Post War Reconstruction issued by a Committee of the Conservative party presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) one of the things advocated was equal pay for men and women doing equal work. Therefore, the Conservative party is, to a certain extent, committed to the principle, and I cannot imagine that, when it has been accepted by them, the other two parties are likely to repudiate it. Therefore, I feel, that the case for treating boys and girls alike, from whatever angle one regards it, is very strong. This principle has also been frequently endorsed by the National Arbitration Tribunal which has been set up by the Government. The principle for this service should surely be the rate for the job whether it is done by a boy or girl.
I would like to draw a contrast between the action of farmers in my area and the Post Office. The Post Office is not the only body that has appealed for school children. The farmers did it for the harvest, and in my area they paid the boys and girls who volunteered the same. The Post Office made a distinction, and at Christmas they paid boys at the rate of 1s. an hour and girls 11d. Is it really right to bring home to school girls at this early age the fact that they are in an inferior economic position? The argument might be used that if the Postmaster-General gave way it might be the thin end of the wedge. It always seems to me to be an undesirable argument that you should not do something which you believe to be right because you might be led later on to do something about the rightness of which you are not yet convinced. I would also remind my hon. Friend who is to reply that a wedge serves a useful purpose when some unnecessary obstruction has to be removed. This is an anomaly that ought to be put right. It may be too late to affect those who volunteered for this service last Christmas, but we shall be calling upon the services of boys and girls on future occasions, and I hope that, as a result of the representations which have been made to him, the Postmaster-General will reconsider the position, and that in future when school boys and girls are asked to render to the Post Office service of exactly the same kind they shall receive the same


pay. The rate for the job is the principle for which I plead.

Viscountess Astor: I shall be interested to hear what excuse the Government can give for this difference in pay to boys and girls. It is one of the most shaming things we have to face. We politicians are on our trial now. When we go to the country the people say they are tired of the promises of politicians. What can they think of a Government composed of all the talents or all the parties who are pledged to equal treatment of men and women, who start off by trying to give girls an inferiority complex? Do they not know that it would be the worst thing in the world for the women to get an inferiority complex, just as it would be devastating for the men to have a superiority complex? We do not want any complexes. We are not asking anything unreasonable. We are just asking that boys and girls should have the same wages for the same work. There is a movement in the country and among some women in the House of Commons which would go much further than the House of Commons and many women would want to go. I am not an extreme feminist, but I put it to the House of Commons and to men who have daughters that they must see that at this moment in the history of the country we must be prepared to give equal pay for equal work. I cannot go as far as those women who say that they want the Government to make it a law that a man shall share his wages with his wife. That would mean the end of many a happy home, and there would be many a home that would not be started if you told the men that they would compulsorily have to share their wages with their wives. I honestly feel that the Government are making things very hard for some of us who are backing them in the country and are trying to back them in this House, if, at this late moment, they cannot put it down that women shall have equal pay for equal work, no matter how high up they go.
They used to talk about women being weaker than men, but that is all thrown over now. There is a very interesting thing that happened in the blitz. A voluntary driver had to fetch a man and take him to give blood at one of the hospitals, but he was in such a state of agitation when he got to the hospital that the girl

driver had to get out and give her blood instead. It shows that men are not always stronger, physically and in other ways, than girls. That idea is all burst now, and we all know it. I do not want to be provocative, but let us remember that this is the first war in which women have had to go by the side of men and in which people have seen that women have just as much physical courage, and a lot more moral courage, than some of the men. We want that to go on. It is the first war in which women have done so much——

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might point out to the noble Lady that, while she is quite in Order to discuss the whole question of equal pay, and so on, this is a limited matter in which the Postmaster-General is to answer, and that he cannot answer on the subject which she is raising now.

Viscountess Astor: Quite right, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that the Postmaster-General might have some say with the Cabinet, and might be able to say to them: "Look here, we can't go on like this." After all, women have never worked harder, or been so little represented in the Government, and no Government have ever paid less attention to the equality of women and done less to put them on the map; yet no Government have ever been so helped. Are we not fighting for liberty, justice, equality and freedom? It is almost the whole Atlantic Charter which is at the basis of this matter, and I hope that the Postmaster-General is not going to put us off. I wan him to go back and pay these girls the extra 1d.

Mr. Tom Brown: This matter is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country, particularly in most of the cities where girls have responded to the call to come forward at Christmas time and help the Postmaster-General and his staff with the volume of work at that time. This matter, as the Noble Lady has just said, involves a principle which is not lightly to be disregarded. The time has gone by when this question of equal pay ought to be brought forward at this hour. Looking over the records of this House I found, that in May, 1920, this House passed the following Resolution without a Division:
That it is expedient that women should have equal opportunity of employment with


men in all branches of the Civil Service within the United Kingdom and under all local authorities, and should also receive equal pay.
In 1936 the House of Commons passed the following Resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come when the Government should give effect to the Resolution voted by the House of Commons on 19th May, 1920, and forthwith place women employed in the lower classes of the Civil Service on the same scales of pay as apply to men in those classes.
Even the Tomlin Commission, in 1931, spoke in unusually strong terms about the differentiation of pay between male and female workers. Does anyone seriously assert that a girl should be paid less than a boy when she is doing the same class of work? It makes no difference to me whether the name is Michael or Muriel or Peter or Priscilla; if they are doing the same class of work they ought to receive the same pay. I hope that the Postmaster-General will give us an assurance that not only will he give equal pay for equal work in the future but that he will pay these girls who responded so nobly when he was in difficulties. What does it matter? It is only a paltry shilling. It is about time these trivial matters never saw the light of day in the British House of Commons.

Mrs. Tate: Whenever we ask for equal pay we have one of three answers given. Either we are told that the woman is doing less work than a man, or we are told that the man has more responsibilities than a woman, or we are told that the Government cannot afford to pay the extra. The Post Office makes a very large profit out of the country. There is no question that a penny in the shilling will decrease its profits. There is no suggestion that a boy of school age has responsibilities which a girl of school age has not got. We, therefore, come to the question of whether the work done by the two sexes is absolutely equal. I think the reply we shall get to-day is that the boys shoulder heavier bags than the girls do. I have taken a little trouble to find out what the work done by the boys and girls was. The headmistress of the Bedford High School asked her girls to volunteer for this work, and she said it had a very unfortunate effect on them when they found themselves side by side with boys who volunteered. In that place it is considered that the girls, on the whole, proved more reliable, and it was not good for the girls to have the

irritation of doing exactly the same work, exactly the same hours, and finding they were paid a little less.
With regard to whether or not heavy bags are carried by the girls and the boys, there was a letter in one of the papers, I am sorry I did not cut it out, in which a temporary civil servant expressed his dismay at having seen girls shoulder much heavier bags than the boys. There is an office not far from this House of Commons where once a week extremely heavy mail bags containing periodicals are delivered. On many occasions the men driving the vans have said that the bags were too heavy for them to take up the steps into the house. On every single occasion when that has happened the bags have been taken from the pavement into the building entirely by women. I therefore hope we shall not have the excuse, because we all know there is no real foundation for it, that the boys are doing work of greater value than the girls. I think no one will deny that a girl of 16 is a little more advanced in age than a boy of 16. Girls develop more quickly. If we had to choose between entrusting a letter, which we wished to be sure would be delivered, to a little girl or a little boy we should, I think, very often choose the little girl, because perhaps at that age the temptations of life are less great.
There never was a time when it was so important to make adolescent girls realise how vital it is that they should be trustworthy and give a maximum responsibility to the country. They are the future mothers and the future wives, and to-day there is not one of us who does not feel great anxiety on their behalf. Do not let us add to that anxiety by giving them a sense of discontent and frustration and a reasonable grievance. That is the one thing we do not wish to let them have. We want them to realise that they have a very vital part in the building up of this country after the war and to develop their sense of responsibility and not to lessen it.

Mr. Hannah: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), but I do not want to make a speech. This Adjournment Debate seems to me to have illustrated a new thing, and I felt that, as a mere man, I could not compete with a woman in saying exactly the same thing in slightly different and exceedingly


eloquent language. Therefore, I shall not make any effort to do so.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): As you have said, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position now to speak on the general question of equal pay for men and women, and I must, therefore, confine myself to the matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), namely, the equal remuneration or otherwise of the boys and girls who came into the Post Office to help us at Christmas-time. I can best help my hon. Friend if I briefly say how the Post Office has dealt with this problem hitherto, and why. As my hon. Friend will see, he has made one or two false assumptions in the, I must say, powerful case which he made for his point of view. This problem of employing boys and girls arose only in 1942, because up to then we had been able to get all the casual labour we required from other sources. Since then what I might call the depredations of the Minister of Labour have gone far and wide, and we have had to call upon these children, who, as my hon. Friend has said, have nobly responded. We prescribed maximum rates, but we left it to our regional authorities to fix different rates in different localities, because different conditions very often prevailed. They were left with a pretty free hand. They were enjoined to consult the school authorities and also the local Employment Exchanges. How it happened is that the regional authorities fixed the rates in localities on the recommendation of the local postmasters.
Now I come to the reasons why we fixed the differential maximum. This is, I think, the bone of contention. We fixed it for two reasons. One is that we thought that this type of casual employment, which, after all, is for only 10 days up to Christmas, was more in keeping with conditions prevailing in outside industry, not with those in continuous Civil Service employment. As hon. Members know, there are differential rates outside. I could quote a number of cases, such as employment on the railways, in co-operative societies, in the food distributive trades, and so on. That is the first reason. The second reason is that, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has said—and I have been

into this matter rather carefully—the boys are asked to perform heavier work in nearly every case. I see that she shakes her head, but it is a fact that in the main the girls are kept entirely on letter sorting and delivery, and the boys are put on parcels. If the boys go out on delivery they usually carry heavier loads than the girls do. I do want to stress this—that we do not want the boys' loads to be larger than they should be for boys of that age.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I cannot speak of the whole country, but my own daughter was taking parcels, and her friends from the same secondary school were carrying parcels just the same way as boys.

Mr. Grimston: I would not dispute what my hon. Friend says. What I am saying is that, by and large, we do ask the boys to do heavier work than the girls, although, of course, in certain localities, as obviously in his case, they may do the same. Here I want to say that there is no injunction to our Regional authorities that equal rates should not be paid, and I think it would be useful if I gave the House the result of an analysis of a certain number of offices which I have had made and which I thought would be of use to the House. Of 70 cases which I have had reviewed—head offices throughout the country—in nine of them equal pay has, in fact, been granted to the boys and girls at the request of the local Headmistress. In most of these cases, as a matter of fact, the boys do heavier work than the girls and there has been no complaint. I would like to assure the hon. Lady that the age of chivalry is not past and that they carry the extra burden for the same pay. By and large, I do claim that the Post Office has endeavoured to deal fairly in these matters. What we have done in fixing rates is this. We have, as we think rightly, conformed to practice in industry and commerce. We have given each locality discretion to make a local arrangement for equal pay if it is desired. We do, in the main, although there are exceptions, ask the boys to do the heavier work, and at the time my hon. Friend asked this Question, he got the answer that the arrangements could not be altered for this year because some of the school children were already at work. I hope he will appreciate that that was the reason why he got the answer that nothing could be done this year.
So much for the past. In future, I should like to say to the House, our minds are not closed on this matter. I am not going to give a specific undertaking that, if we employ boys and girls next Christmas, we will give them equal pay, but I will give the undertaking that we will re-examine this matter between now and next Christmas and the suggestions put forward by this House will be taken into account. The Union of Post Office Workers said they could not agree with the maxima being differential, and we promised them that we would look into the matter again. That promise I now repeat. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will think we have not adopted an unreasonable attitude in the matter, and will be satisfied with the reply I have given. However, I would like to take the opportunity in this House of paying tribute to the work these boys and girls have done. I went round to see them actually myself, and found them working cheerfully and well everywhere. It is true that on Christmas Eve they took back Christmas boxes, but they had been earned.

Mr. Lipson: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the promise to look into

the matter, and I hope the decision he arrives at will be the right one.

Mr. Muff: The Assistant Postmaster-General has been ready to hide behind the skirts of these old ladies in the regions. He has been "passing the buck." These young workers, boys and girls who did such splendid work, ought not to be ex-ploited——

Mr. Grimston: I cannot agree about there being exploitation. I do not think there is any suggestion of that.

Viscountess Astor: He means the trade unions and the co-operatives.

Mr. Muff: I do not care what the Postmaster did. It is the responsibility of St. Martins-le-Grand, or wherever these people congregate, and they are ready to hide themselves behind skirts up and down the country.

Viscountess Aston: I do not know to what ladies the hon. Member is referring.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.